Frequency of an accessory popliteal efferent lymphatic pathway in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Staging and therapeutic planning for dogs with malignant disease in the popliteal lymph node are based on the expected patterns of lymphatic drainage from the lymph node. The medial iliac lymph nodes are known to receive efferent lymph from the popliteal lymph node; however, an accessory popliteal efferent pathway with direct connection to the sacral lymph nodes has also been less frequently reported. The primary objective of this prospective, anatomic study was to describe the frequency of various patterns of lymphatic drainage of the popliteal lymph node. With informed client consent, 50 adult dogs with no known disease of the lymphatic system underwent computed tomographic lymphography after ultrasound-guided, percutaneous injection of 350 mg/ml iohexol into a popliteal lymph node. In all 50 dogs, the popliteal lymph node drained directly to the ipsilateral medial iliac lymph node through multiple lymphatic vessels that coursed along the medial thigh. In 26% (13/50) of dogs, efferent vessels also drained from the popliteal lymph node directly to the internal iliac and/or sacral lymph nodes, coursing laterally through the gluteal region and passing over the dorsal aspect of the pelvis. Lymphatic connections between the right and left medial iliac and right and left internal iliac lymph nodes were found. Based on our findings, the internal iliac and sacral lymph nodes should be considered when staging or planning therapy for dogs with malignant disease in the popliteal lymph node.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".