MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2381656036 · doi:10.1111/avj.12449

Piroxicam and doxycycline treatment for an oral squamous cell carcinoma in an inshore bottlenose dolphin (<i>Tursiops aduncus</i>)

2016· article· en· W2381656036 on OpenAlexaff
DT March, DJ Blyde, GD Bossart, A. M. Begg, DP Taylor, Vanessa McClure

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Veterinary Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsCytodiagnostics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBottlenose dolphinPiroxicamDoxycyclineTongueMedicinePathologyBasal cellBiologyAntibioticsFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The virus family Papillomaviridae has been documented in a wide range of animal species and can cause benign and malignant proliferative lesions. The presence of concurrent lingual papillomas and squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) in cetaceans has also been documented in both wild and captive populations, suggesting malignant transformation of benign papilloma to SCC may occur in this species. CASE REPORT: In 2008, a 38-year-old captive male inshore bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) was diagnosed with papillomatous lesions on the intermandibular frenulum rostral to the tongue and an infiltrative SCC of the soft palate following biopsy and histological analysis. A treatment regimen of piroxicam and doxycycline was initiated with misoprostol as a gastroprotectant. The treatment resulted in a marked reduction in tumour size and reversible hepatotoxicosis. Subsequent biopsies revealed the presence of SCC in the oral cavity; however, the disease remains stable at the time of writing. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this case is the first report of piroxicam and doxycycline used to treat SCC in a bottlenose dolphin. The treatment was successful in reducing the clinical presentation of the disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Veterinary JournalSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207