Vocal fold granuloma associated with brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome in 13 dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To clinically and histopathologically characterize the laryngeal mass commonly referred to as vocal fold granuloma in brachycephalic dogs and to evaluate treatment responses and follow-up outcomes. Animals: 13 brachycephalic dogs were included (8 French Bulldogs, 2 Bulldogs, 1 Pug, 1 Boston Terrier, and 1 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel). Clinical Presentation: Brachycephalic dogs diagnosed with a vocal fold mass during endoscopic laryngeal examination were retrospectively included. Results: 11 dogs were referred for consultation of brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome (BOAS). All dogs exhibited clinical signs of upper respiratory obstruction, and 7 had gastrointestinal symptoms. Twelve dogs underwent surgical resection of vocal fold masses with BOAS surgery. Histopathological evaluation revealed exophytic granulation tissue associated with ulceration and inflammation, as well as varying degrees of mucosal hyperplasia. Postoperative treatment included glucocorticoids and antibiotics. One dog with unilateral laryngeal paresis experienced a recurrence of clinical signs 6 months postoperatively and required a second surgical resection. The median follow-up duration for all 13 dogs was 499 days (range, 95 to 1,708 days). No further recurrence was observed during the follow-up period. Clinical Relevance: Laryngeal masses in various brachycephalic breeds, referred to as vocal fold granulomas, consisted of granulation tissue rather than true granulomas. Surgical intervention, including conventional BOAS surgery and excision of granulation tissue, combined with anti-inflammatory treatment appeared essential for establishing a diagnosis and addressing underlying causes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".