Feline mammary adenocarcinoma: tumor size as a prognostic indicator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammary carcinomas and adenocarcinomas (MACs) are relatively common tumors in cats. The postexcisional survival period of affected cats is inversely proportional to tumor size, but the reported median survival periods for different tumor size categories is quite variable. This variability diminishes the prognostic value of reported data. In our study, cats with MACs greater than 3 cm in diameter had a 12-month median survival period, whereas those with MACs less than 3 cm in diameter had a 21-month survival period. Survival periods for cats with MACs smaller than 3 cm ranged from 3 to 54 months; therefore, tumor size alone is of limited prognostic value in cats with MACs smaller than 3 cm in diameter. In cats with MACs larger than 3 cm in diameter, tumor size appears to have much higher prognostic relevance, because this study, as well as others, have indicated that cats with MACs greater than 3 cm in diameter have a poor prognosis, with median survival periods ranging from 4 to 12 months.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".