MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788082121 · doi:10.22256/pubvet.v12n3a47.1-8

Ossificação de fibroma em cão

2018· article· en· W2788082121 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubVet · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpulisPathologySerologyBiopsyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epulis refers to any tumor or similar growth on the gingival tissue and is considered the most frequent of benign oral masses in dogs. Epulis is classified into four types based on histological characteristics: fibromatous, ossifying, acanthomatous and giant cell. The aim of the present study was to present knowledge on benign oral tumors and epulides as well as report a clinical case of ossifying epulis in a male dog (Labrador) aged 25 months. The integrated treatment plan initiated with a diagnostic investigations through hematological, biochemical and serological exams for the study of antibodies for ehrlichiosis, anaplasmosis, dirofilariasis and Lyme disease as well as electrocardiogram and intraoral and thoracic x-rays, followed by the removal of the suspected tumor mass through excisional biopsy. The sample was sent for histopathological analysis for the definitive diagnosis, which confirmed ossifying epulis. In conclusion, surgery was the treatment of choice and only a histopathological analysis can confirm the type of oral neoplasm and prognosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.007

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.268 · 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