Retrospective study evaluating the efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of confirmed or suspected primary pulmonary carcinomas in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canine primary pulmonary carcinomas (PCCs) are commonly treated with surgery with overall median survival times (MST) around a year; however, due to extent of disease, prognosis, or client preference, alternative treatments have been considered. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been utilized in human cancer patients for local control of lung tumours as a surgical alternative. Twenty-one PCCs in 19 dogs that received SBRT for local control were retrospectively evaluated. Dogs were staged according to the canine lung carcinoma stage classification (CLCSC) system with three as Stage 1, five as Stage 2, three as Stage 3, and eight as Stage 4. Overall MST was 343 days with 38% of patients alive at 1 year. Stage did not significantly impact survival time (p = .72). Five (26%) dogs had lymphadenopathy and MST was not significantly different from dogs without lymphadenopathy (343 vs. 353 days; p = .54). Five out of 18 evaluable dogs (28%) experienced acute lung VRTOG effects and 2 of 12 dogs (17%) experienced late lung VRTOG effects. Median lung dose, V5, V20, and D30 to the lung did not correlate significantly with the development of adverse radiation events. Twelve dogs had follow-up imaging and the best response included a complete response (17%), partial response (42%), and stable disease (42%). Progressive disease was noted in seven dogs a median of 229 days after SBRT. SBRT was documented to be a safe and effective alternative to surgery and may have survival advantages for Stage 3 or 4 dogs according to the CLCSC.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".