RETRACTED: Sixteen years of canine hepatic copper concentrations within normal reference ranges in dogs fed a broad range of commercial diets
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of age, sex, breed, liver histopathology, and year of death/sample collection on liver copper concentrations in dogs fed various commercial dog foods throughout their lives. SAMPLE: During necropsy, 336 samples were collected between the years 2006 and 2022 from dogs that were fed a variety of commercial dog foods on the market. This study utilized all liver samples available and did not require specific criteria for sample selection. METHODS: Liver samples (n = 336) were analyzed as dry weight for copper concentration by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry. The potential effects of animal age and year of death/collection (scatterplots and linear regression), sex, liver histopathology (t test), and breed (ANOVA) on liver copper concentration were assessed. RESULTS: Labrador Retrievers had lower liver copper concentrations than Beagles, but mixed breeds did not differ from Beagles or Labrador Retrievers. Analysis of year of death showed that liver copper concentrations decreased from 2006 through 2011, increased in 2012, decreased in 2013, and peaked in 2016, decreasing thereafter. Mean copper concentration of abnormal liver histopathology samples was lower than mean copper concentrations of normal liver histopathology samples. Age (12.9 ± 2.6 years) and sex had no effect on liver copper concentrations. Of note, some samples showed abnormal hepatic pathology. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Liver copper concentrations varied significantly with breed and year of death; however, average liver copper concentrations of each year were within normal. However, this was a retrospective population study and diet histories of the dogs were unknown, requiring further investigation.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".