Analysis of risk factors for canine mast cell tumors based on the Kiupel and Patnaik grading system among dogs with skin tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Skin tumors are the most frequently diagnosed lesions, of which 7%-21% are mast cell tumors (MCTs). There is a great effort to identify factors that can influence the prospective course of MCTs. Although, the histological grade is considering an important predictor helping to determine the malignancy and metastatic potential of MCTs. Aim: In this study, an epidemiological analysis of risk factors (breed, age, sex, and anatomical site) for dogs having MCTs was evaluated considering the respective MCTs histological grade in comparison to other skin tumors. Methods: The study included 244 dogs affected by cutaneous MCTs from a universe of 1,185 dogs diagnosed with skin tumors. A univariable analysis with Fisher exact test was performed to determine the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Boxers had a higher predisposition to Patnaik's grade I (OR = 5.9, 95% CI 2.648-13.152) and to Kiupel's low-grade MCTs (OR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.539-4.447). Labrador retrievers (OR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.423-3.184), and pugs (OR = 12.9, 95% CI 2.336-70.931) had a predisposition for Patnaik's grade II MCTs and Kiupel's low-grade lesions (OR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.478-3.597; OR = 17.1, 95% CI 3.093-94.377, respectively). French bulldogs had a higher risk to grade III MCTs (OR = 7.9, 95% CI 2.381-26.072). Pit bulls had a predisposition to grade III MCTs and Kiupel's high-grade tumors (OR = 4.4, 95% CI 1.221-16.1 and OR = 4.962, 95% CI 1.362-18.077, respectively). Bull terriers (OR = 12.7, 95% CI 2.098-76.818) presented higher risk for having low-grade MCTs. The perigenital area and trunk exhibit a greater risk for high grading lesion (OR = 6.6, 95% CI 2.679-16.334; OR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.028-3.395, respectively) and the limbs had a predisposition to grade II tumor (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.134-2.395). A decreased risk of having MCT was seen in older dogs (from 7-10 years to 11-18 years) compared to that in the reference group (4-6 years). Conclusion: When comparing to canine skin tumors, this study showed a relationship between MCT histological grading and the risk factors, age, breed, and topography of canine MCTs. The variations noted in the clinical presentation of MCTs amongst predisposed dog breeds reinforces the relevance of the genetic background in MCTs carcinogenesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".