Canine tarsal gland epitheliomas and adenomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 290 cases of tarsal gland adenomas and epitheliomas from canine patients were analyzed to determine the frequency and to better characterize their histopathological features. Tissue samples were examined in two veterinary pathology laboratories in Curitiba, Brazil, which receive samples from all over the country. Tarsal epitheliomas were significantly more frequent than tarsal adenomas (77.9% and 20.7%, respectively). In four cases (1.4%), the lesion contained both types of neoplasms. A total of 39 breeds were represented. The most common breeds were: English cocker spaniel (12.4%), poodle (10.3%) and Labrador retriever (9.3%). Mixed breed dogs represented 13.1% of the total. The upper eyelids were most commonly affected (65.2%), males and females were equally represented and there did not appear to be a predilection for either side of the face. Mitotic figures were most common in epitheliomas. The pigmented subtype was the most common form of epithelioma (59.7%). Whereas within the adenomas, the classic subtype (without inflammation or pigmentation) was the most common form (61.7%); and the inflamed subtype was also highly represented (20.0%).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".