Digital Lesions in Dogs: A Statistical Breed Analysis of 2912 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breed predispositions to canine digital neoplasms are well known. However, there is currently no statistical analysis identifying the least affected breeds. To this end, 2912 canine amputated digits submitted from 2014-2019 to the Laboklin GmbH & Co. KG for routine diagnostics were statistically analyzed. The study population consisted of 155 different breeds (most common: 634 Mongrels, 411 Schnauzers, 197 Labrador Retrievers, 93 Golden Retrievers). Non-neoplastic processes were present in 1246 (43%), tumor-like lesions in 138 (5%), and neoplasms in 1528 cases (52%). Benign tumors (n = 335) were characterized by 217 subungual keratoacanthomas, 36 histiocytomas, 35 plasmacytomas, 16 papillomas, 12 melanocytomas, 9 sebaceous gland tumors, 6 lipomas, and 4 bone tumors. Malignant neoplasms (n = 1193) included 758 squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), 196 malignant melanomas (MM), 76 soft tissue sarcomas, 52 mast cell tumors, 37 non-specified sarcomas, 29 anaplastic neoplasms, 24 carcinomas, 20 bone tumors, and 1 histiocytic sarcoma. Predisposed breeds for SCC included the Schnauzer (log OR = 2.61), Briard (log OR = 1.78), Rottweiler (log OR = 1.54), Poodle (log OR = 1.40), and Dachshund (log OR = 1.30). Jack Russell Terriers (log OR = -2.95) were significantly less affected by SCC than Mongrels. Acral MM were significantly more frequent in Rottweilers (log OR = 1.88) and Labrador Retrievers (log OR = 1.09). In contrast, Dachshunds (log OR = -2.17), Jack Russell Terriers (log OR = -1.88), and Rhodesian Ridgebacks (log OR = -1.88) were rarely affected. This contrasted with the well-known predisposition of Dachshunds and Rhodesian Ridgebacks to oral and cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms. Further studies are needed to explain the underlying reasons for breed predisposition or "resistance" to the development of specific acral tumors and/or other sites.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".