Neoplasia within the equine foot: A retrospective case series of four horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Background Trauma to the foot and distal phalanx are common presenting complaints. In contrast, neoplasia of the distal phalanx or hoof region is rarely reported. Within the foot, keratomas are the most frequently reported neoplasm. The gross and radiographic appearance of keratomas is well documented; however, this is less well established for other neoplasms of the hoof capsule. Objective This paper presents four cases which had clinical and radiographic similarities to keratomas; however, key differences were observed. We aimed to highlight the key differences in imaging findings and clinical progression. Study design Retrospective multicentre case series. Methods Cases identified between 2015 and 2019 with pathological diagnoses of neoplasia within the foot at Purdue University Veterinary teaching hospital and Langford Equine Hospital. Clinical records were examined, and physical examination, imaging, surgical and pathological findings are presented. Results The four cases presented had similarities to keratomas; however, key differences were present. Marked lameness was noted in all three cases with aggressive neoplasia, whereas one case was not lame at presentation but still had a diagnosis of a benign neoplasm. Radiographic examination showed significant lucent areas with poor delineation at the margins and suspected invasion into the distal phalanx. For the two melanomas and the squamous cell carcinoma, deterioration was marked and rapid, ultimately leading to euthanasia. The benign neoplasm was managed successfully for 2 years and lost to follow‐up. Conclusions Although rare, neoplasms other than keratoma do occur in the foot. Careful interpretation of the imaging findings, consideration of additional imaging such as vascular studies or cross‐sectional imaging, and submission of tissue for biopsy are strongly recommended if there is any suspicion of the lesion being anything other than a keratoma.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".