MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286504592 · doi:10.1002/vrc2.458

Lumbosacral MRI findings in two dogs diagnosed with a <i>Neospora caninum</i> infection

2022· article· en· W4286504592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Clark, Thomas Shaw, Lluís Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Record Case Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicToxoplasma gondii Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLumbosacral jointMagnetic resonance imagingLumbarNeospora caninumBiopsyHyperintensityPathologyMuscle biopsyCerebrospinal fluidErector spinae musclesRadiologyAnatomyAntibodyToxoplasma gondii

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A 5‐month‐old, male, entire labrador retriever (case 1) and a 6‐year‐old, female, neutered greyhound (case 2) presented following chronic, progressive, non‐painful paraparesis in both cases with L4–Cd and L4–S1 neurolocalisation respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbosacral region revealed multifocal muscular changes in both cases with patchy T2‐weighted and water‐weighted T2‐weighted Dixon hyperintensities, with moderate contrast enhancement throughout the gluteal and lumbar paraspinal muscles. Multifocal radiculoneuropathy in case 1 and meningomyelitis in case 2 were identified. Crucially, in case 1, the identification of abnormal muscles on magnetic resonance imaging allowed the diagnosis of neosporosis via polymerase chain reaction on targeted muscle biopsy when previously indirect fluorescent antibody test serology was inconclusive and polymerase chain reaction on lumbar cerebrospinal fluid was negative. These cases highlight the magnetic resonance imaging findings of canine lumbar neosporosis and offer an alternative route of diagnosis through targeted muscle biopsy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary Record Case ReportsSame topicToxoplasma gondii Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207