Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Dr. Roush,Thank you for your interest and comments on our paper entitled “Proximal Radial and Distal Humeral Osteosar-coma in 12 Dogs,” published in the November-December issue of theJournal of the American Animal Hospital Association (2004;40:461–467).The reported median survival time and median metastasis-free interval are correct, and no mistake has been made by either the authors or the reviewers. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis is the standard statistical test to calculate outcome in animals and humans with oncologic disease. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis includes animals that have died from tumor-related causes or are lost to follow-up, whereas animals that are alive or have died for reasons unrelated to the tumor are censored from analysis.In our analysis, 10 dogs with osteosarcoma of the distal humerus or proximal radius were treated with curative-intent forequarter amputation and postoperative chemotherapy. Of these 10 dogs, four died because of metastatic disease, two dogs were lost to follow-up, three dogs died from unrelated causes, and one dog was alive. Hence, the oncologic outcome calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis censored the latter four dogs. As a result, the 50% (or median) for dogs dead or presumed dead (i.e., lost to follow-up) because of tumor-related causes is 356 days for metastasis and 824 days for survival. This is demonstrated on the Kaplan-Meier survival curve on page465.The calculations provided in your letter are correct medians for the raw data but do not consider oncologic outcome and cause of death and, hence, are incorrect in the context of this paper and other papers reporting oncologic data.Lastly, even for the casual reader, we clearly and unequivocally state in the abstract, results, discussion, and conclusion that metastasis-free interval and survival time for dogs with osteosarcoma of the distal humerus and proximal radius are not significantly different from osteosar-coma in other appendicular sites.Yours sincerely,
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.161 | 0.108 |
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".