MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528008360 · doi:10.1177/1040638716665659

Neoplasia in 125 donkeys ( <i>Equus asinus</i> )

2016· review· en· W2528008360 on OpenAlexaffabout
Corrine R. Davis, Beth A. Valentine, Emma Gordon, Sean P. McDonough, Paula A. Schaffer, Andrew L. Allen, Patricia A. Pesavento

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquidaePathologyDonkeyMedicineEquus asinusHorseMelanomaDermatologyVeterinary medicineBiologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A diagnosis of neoplasia was noted in 125 of 357 donkeys (35%) in our review of medical records from 5 veterinary schools in the United States and Canada. Equine sarcoid was the most common tumor in our study, accounting for 72% of all tumors and 82% of cutaneous tumors. Soft-tissue sarcomas were the second most common skin tumors. All other types of neoplasia were rare. Important differences in the occurrence of neoplasia in donkeys compared to horses included the rarity or absence of squamous cell carcinoma in any organ system and gray horse melanoma. Lymphosarcoma, the most common malignant tumor in horses, appears to be very rare in donkeys. We report several tumors in donkeys including melanocytoma, peripheral nerve sheath tumor, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Our data demonstrate commonalities as well as differences in neoplastic diseases of donkeys and horses. Understanding differences in carcinogenesis among these 2 closely related species can inform researchers pursuing pathogenic mechanisms of equine disease and inform veterinary diagnosticians regarding tumor prevalence.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationSame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207