Diagnosis of cardiac tumors in dogs with clinical signs of pericardial effusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dogs of the Labrador breed are most predisposed to the formation of a heart tumor (30 %), while no clear correlation was found in other breeds. The experimental group represents a rather small and diverse breed base, which makes reliable identification of breed predisposition difficult. In most cases, cells without sharp signs of atypia were observed in the effusion fluid (80 %), in 30 % of cases the cells had pronounced atypia, and in 30 % reactive mesothelium was found in smears. It is important to note that reactive mesothelium is not a reliable marker of a tumor process, since it can be normal during proliferation, as well as cell atypia, which is often observed with constant and active mitostatic processes. The most informative method is histology and echocardiography. In 8 out of 10 cases, histological examination confirmed a cardiac tumor, while in 8 out of 10 cases the tumor was visualized on echocardiography. Cytological examination gave reasons to suspect a tumor in 3 out of 10 cases of mesothelioma or absence of visualization on echocardiography, but at present there are no methods capable of differentiating mesothelioma cells from reactive mesothelium either cytologically or histologically.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".