Surgical excision of iridociliary tumors using a postero‐anterior cyclo‐iridectomy and thermocautery in two dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the surgical excision of an iridociliary adenoma and iridal melanocytoma using a postero-anterior cyclo-iridectomy in two dogs. PROCEDURE: A 7 year old neutered male English springer spaniel (case 1) and a 7 year old neutered male Labrador mix (case 2) were presented for evaluation of an intrairidal mass OS. RESULTS: Complete ophthalmic examination revealed a large, dorsonasal, well-demarcated, intrairidal mass OS. A tan to pink intrairidal mass extending into the iridocorneal angle (case 1) and a pigmented intrairidal mass (case 2) were present. B-mode ultrasonography showed a focal, soft tissue, homogenous mass within the uvea adjacent to and contacting the lens. Neither pars plana involvement nor vitreal extension was present. A postero-anterior cyclo-iridectomy was performed through a polyhedral scleral flap. Thermocautery was used to complete the cyclo-iridectomy (case 1) and partial iridectomy (case 2) to excise the mass en bloc. Histopathology revealed a completely excised iridociliary adenoma (case 1) and iris melanocytoma (case 2). The surgery sites healed without complication. Mild uveitis (cases 1 and 2), scant vitreal hemorrhage (case 1), and mild hyphema (case 2) were present three days postoperatively but had resolved ten days postoperatively. The patients remain visual twenty-two months (case 1) and seven months (case 2) postoperatively with a normal intraocular examination other than an iridal defect and mild dorsonasal lens capsular opacities. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical approach described in these cases is utilized in physician-based medicine. This approach and the use of thermocautery provide a viable surgical option for excision of large iridociliary tumors in dogs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".