Diagnosis and histopathologic prognostication of canine melanocytic neoplasms: A consensus of the Oncology‐Pathology Working Group
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the primary objectives of the Oncology Pathology Working Group (OPWG) is for oncologists and pathologists to collaboratively generate consensus documents to standardize aspects of and provide guidelines for veterinary oncologic pathology. Consensus is established through review of relevant peer-reviewed literature relative to a subgroup's particular focus. In this article, the authors provide a critical review of the current literature for the diagnosis of, and histopathologic prognostication for, canine cutaneous and oral/lip melanocytic neoplasms, suggest guidelines for reporting, provide recommendations for clinical interpretation, and discuss future directions. This document represents the opinions of the working group and the authors and does not constitute a formal endorsement by the American College of Veterinary Pathologists, American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine or the Veterinary Cancer Society.
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.
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) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it