MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936304635 · doi:10.1111/vec.12838

Development and validation of a hemangiosarcoma likelihood prediction model in dogs presenting with spontaneous hemoabdomen: The HeLP score

2019· article· en· W2936304635 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley R. Schick, Galina M. Hayes, Ameet Singh, Kyle G. Mathews, Mary Lynn Higginbotham, J. Matthew Sherwood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModel validationInternal medicineData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To calculate a risk prediction model for hemangiosarcoma (HSA) diagnosis in dogs presenting with nontraumatic hemoabdomen. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter observational cohort study enrolling dogs presented 2003-2016. SETTING: Five academic veterinary medical centers. ANIMALS: A total of 406 dogs with nontraumatic hemoabdomen as the presenting complaint that underwent surgical exploration or necropsy and received a histological diagnosis. Overall, 219 dogs from 3 centers provided the data for model construction, and 187 dogs from 2 centers provided the population for external validation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The risk score was modeled on 4 predictors: bodyweight (P = 0.01), total plasma protein (P < 0.01), platelet count (P < 0.01), and thoracic radiograph findings (P = 0.02). The incidence of HSA diagnosis was 36%, 76%, and 96% in the low risk (≤40), medium risk (41-55), and high risk (>55) score groups, respectively. The risk score AUROC was 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.90) on the construction population, and 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.84) on the validation population. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of HSA diagnosis in dogs presenting with nontraumatic hemoabdomen could be predicted using a simple risk score, which could aid in identification and treatment of dogs at lower risk for this diagnosis.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical CareSame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207