Effect of surgical site infection on survival after limb amputation in the curative‐intent treatment of canine appendicular osteosarcoma: a Veterinary Society of Surgical Oncology retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of surgical site infection (SSI) on the median disease-free interval (DFI) and median survival time (MST) in dogs after amputation in the curative-intent treatment of appendicular osteosarcoma (OSA). STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective cohort study. ANIMALS: Fifteen dogs with OSA and SSI, and 134 dogs with OSA and no SSI. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed, and dogs were included if the following criteria were met: histologic confirmation of OSA, no evidence of metastasis, ≥1 chemotherapy treatment, and available follow-up data. We used the definition of SSI from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kaplan-Meier estimates of median DFI and MST for the SSI and non-SSI groups were compared by log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was evaluated for associations with DFI and survival. RESULTS: The median DFI and MST of all OSA dogs were 236 days (95% CI, 181-283) and 283 days (95% CI 237-355), respectively. The median DFI of dogs with SSI (292 days) did not differ from that of dogs without SSI (224 days, P = .156). The MST of dogs with SSI (292 days) did not differ from that of dogs without SSI (280 days, P = .417). Failure to complete chemotherapy was associated with decreased DFI and survival (P < .001). Adjustments for chemotherapy completion found no effect of SSI on survival. CONCLUSION: SSI did not influence the survival of dogs with appendicular OSA treated with amputation and curative-intent treatment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The extended survival associated with SSI after limb-spare surgery for OSA does not appear to be present after amputation. Interactions between the canine immune system and OSA warrant additional study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".