Efficacy of Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Sialocele in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sialocele is a collection of saliva that has leaked from a damaged salivary gland or duct and is surrounded by granulation tissue. Surgery is the recognized first-line treatment. Recurrence rate after surgery is 5-14%. Salivary gland tissue is very sensitive to radiation therapy (RT). HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Radiation therapy will be useful for the treatment of sialocele. The aims were to characterize response rate and clinical course of dogs with sialocele treated with RT and to determine a starting dose for clinical use. ANIMALS: Eleven dogs with sialocele. METHODS: Retrospective study of response and outcome after RT. RESULTS: All dogs had cervical sialocele. Seven dogs (63.6%) were treated with 3 weekly fractions of 4 Gray (Gy); (total dose, 12 Gy). Three dogs (27.3%) received 4 fractions of 4 Gy (16 Gy) and 1 dog received 5 fractions of 4 Gy (20 Gy) on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule. Six dogs (54%) achieved a complete response (CR), and 5 dogs (45%) achieved a partial response (PR). Three dogs had progression of their sialocele 2, 3, and 9 months after RT; all three had received 12 Gy initially and 2 received 2 additional fractions of 4 Gy (cumulative total dose, 20 Gy) and subsequently achieved remission for >2 years. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Radiation therapy is useful for the treatment of recurrent sialocele refractory to surgical management and a minimum total dose of 16 or 20 Gy in 4 Gy fractions appears effective.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".