MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913556592 · doi:10.1177/0300985818823667

Oculodermal Melanocytosis: Nevus of Ota in a Dog

2019· article· en· W2913556592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stamatina Giannikaki, Kit Sturgess, Emma Scurrell, Prado Cebrian, Natàlia Escanilla, Robert Lowe

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Pathology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNevus of OtaHyperpigmentationMedicineScleraEnucleationDermatologyDermisConjunctivaNevusPathologyAnatomyOphthalmologyMelanomaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report describes the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and histopathologic features of oculodermal melanocytosis in a young dog. A 3-year-old male neutered Labrador Retriever presented with conjunctival and scleral hyperpigmentation of the right eye, with concurrent ipsilateral cutaneous hyperpigmentation involving the right side of the face. Initial skin and conjunctival biopsies revealed an accumulation of histologically benign melanocytes within the dermis and conjunctival stroma, respectively. Enucleation was elected 19 months later by the referring veterinarian due to the progression of ocular pigmentation with concurrent marked corneal lipidosis and the suspicion of a scleral mass. On gross and histopathologic examination of the globe, there was marked panuveal melanocytosis with extension into the sclera, bulbar conjunctiva, and connective tissue surrounding the optic nerve, as well as sharply demarcated ipsilateral hyperpigmentation of the facial skin. The findings are characteristic of oculodermal melanocytosis (nevus of Ota), a dermal melanocytic hamartoma presenting as cutaneous facial hyperpigmentation that corresponds to the distribution of the ophthalmic and maxillary branches of the trigeminal nerve, often with ipsilateral ocular involvement.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary PathologySame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207