MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463114084 · doi:10.1111/vco.12252

Clinical prognostic factors in canine histiocytic sarcoma

2016· article· en· W2463114084 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nikolaos Dervisis, Matti Kiupel, Qizhi Qin, Lori Cesario

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary and Comparative Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityMichigan State UniversityMorris Animal Foundation
KeywordsHistiocytic sarcomaHistiocyteSarcomaMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canine histiocytic sarcoma (HS) is an aggressive neoplasia with variable clinical course and fatal outcome. The goals of this study were to evaluate a large cohort of canine patients with immunohistochemically confirmed HS and identify clinical prognostic factors. Biopsy submissions to the Michigan State University with tentative HS diagnoses were histologically and immunohistochemically confirmed, medical records collected, and interviews with relevant veterinary clinics conducted. Of 1391 histopathology submissions with a diagnosis containing the word 'histiocytic', 335 were suspicious for malignancy, and 180 were consistent with HS and had adequate clinical information recorded. The most commonly represented breeds were Bernese mountain dogs (n = 53), labrador retrievers (n = 26) and golden retrievers (n = 17). Median survival for all dogs in the study was 170 days, and subgroup analysis identified palliative treatment, disseminated HS, and concurrent use of corticosteroids as statistically significant negative factors for survival, in both uni- and multi-variate methodologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations59
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary and Comparative OncologySame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207