MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408740670 · doi:10.1177/10406387251329020

Canine polyostotic B-cell lymphoma: a case with clinical, immunohistochemical, and flow cytometric characterization, and review of the literature

2025· review· en· W4408740670 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Kornya, C. Bryant, Brandon N. Lillie, S. Barriendos Sanz, Kristiina Ruotsalo, Dorothee Bienzle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyMedicineLymphomaBone marrowCD20

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An 8-mo-old Mastiff-cross dog with bone pain and lytic-proliferative lesions in the radius, ulna, femur, vertebral spinous processes, and ribs, was diagnosed with lymphoma. The dog also had anemia and thrombocytopenia, and atypical circulating lymphocytes were identified as B cells by flow cytometry. Due to the multicentric, rapidly progressive disease, the dog was euthanized. Postmortem examination confirmed extensive bone replacement by lymphoma, and infiltration of lymph nodes, spleen, and liver. Histomorphology and immunohistochemistry showed a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma that was immunopositive for PAX5 and CD20, and immunonegative for CD3. Lymphoma of bone is rare in dogs and humans, and is most frequently reported in pediatric individuals. Including our case, 7 of 14 reported cases occurred in dogs <2-y-old, and all but 1 had polyostotic disease. Long bones, ribs, and vertebrae were affected most often, and the distal metaphyseal region was targeted in long bones. Visceral and nodal tissue infiltration was common, and all tumors had a diffuse architecture. Most dogs with polyostotic lymphoma were euthanized at the time of diagnosis, and survival was <6 wk in dogs that were treated with chemotherapy or surgery.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationSame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207