Canine pedal papilloma identification and management: a retrospective series of 44 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Papillomavirus infections in dogs have a variety of manifestations and involve multiple viral genera. Canine pedal papillomas have been infrequently studied and reported in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To report the signalment, history, treatment and outcome of biopsy-confirmed cases of canine pedal papillomatosis, collected from veterinarians across the United States and Canada ANIMALS: Medical records from 44 dogs were submitted by North American veterinarians. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Surveys were submitted through the Veterinary Information Network for biopsy-confirmed cases of canine pedal papillomatosis. Submissions included information on patient signalment, history, biopsy report, treatment and outcome. RESULTS: Forty-four cases were reviewed. The median age of presentation was four years old. Dogs most commonly presented with lameness and/or paw licking/chewing. Only one paw was affected in 35 cases, and front paws were more often affected than back paws. Twenty-eight dogs presented with one mass. Histopathological evaluation documented 33 cases of noninverted papillomas and 11 cases of inverted papillomas. Thirty-four papillomas resolved in total; 25 resolved within three weeks after biopsy collection. Twenty-one dogs received no additional treatment and 15 of those cases resolved. Azithromycin was the most commonly reported treatment initiated after biopsy was collected. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The biological behaviour of canine pedal papillomas in this case series was similar to oral papillomas, and most lesions resolved with or without additional treatment. Further research is needed to better characterise the causative papillomavirus types and genera involved in the development of canine pedal papillomas.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".