Histologic Grade Does Not Predict Outcome in Dogs with Appendicular Osteosarcoma Receiving the Standard of Care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canine appendicular osteosarcoma is an aggressive bone neoplasm that imposes a short survival time. There are several published histologic grading systems for canine osteosarcoma but no universally accepted system. Location within the skeleton and therapy received are both correlated with survival time, but these factors were not always considered when the prognostic value of published grading systems was determined. Our objective was to compare 2 published histologic grading systems in a population of dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma treated with the standard of care for curative intent. Three evaluators graded 85 tumors using 2 histologic grading systems. The relationships between histologic grade as well as individual histologic features and outcome (survival time and disease-free interval) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival functions and a univariate Cox proportional hazards model. Histologic grade, as assigned by any evaluator, did not correlate with outcome. Increased number of mitotic figures per 3 randomly selected 400× microscope fields, as assessed by 1 evaluator, was correlated with both survival time and disease-free interval; this was the only individual histologic feature that was significantly correlated with outcome for any evaluator. These findings cast doubt on the predictive value of routine histologic grading in dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma who receive amputation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and highlight the need for better tools to predict outcome in canine appendicular osteosarcoma.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it