MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410344182 · doi:10.1177/10406387251337369

T- and B-cell lymphomas in 2 captive green tree pythons

2025· article· en· W4410344182 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Pagliarani, Luke A. J. Haydock, Leonardo Susta, Pauline Delnatte, Cédric B. Larouche, Mauricio Seguel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsToronto ZooUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunolabelingBiologyPathologyLymphomaCD20Neoplastic cellSpleenImmunohistochemistryImmunologyMedicineCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

), a male and a female, were diagnosed with lymphoma. At autopsy, the female was in poor body condition and had an extensive subcutaneous soft tissue mass along the ribs. The mass was composed of numerous neoplastic round cells that were also present in the liver and spleen and within blood vessels. Neoplastic cells had marked, diffuse membranous-to-cytoplasmic immunolabeling for CD3, consistent with disseminated leukemic T-cell lymphoma. The male had a history of chronic spinal deformities and was in poor body condition. All examined organs contained variable numbers of neoplastic round cells with moderate-to-marked nuclear-to-cytoplasmic immunolabeling for PAX5, consistent with B-cell lymphoma. Here we describe 2 distinct immunophenotypes of lymphomas, including a B-cell neoplasm that has not been reported previously in snakes, to our knowledge. Our 2 cases highlight the potential value of CD3 and PAX5 immunohistochemical markers in ophidians and expand the spectrum of neoplastic diseases documented in reptiles. Understanding the clinical significance of lymphoma in snakes, including its potential impact on prognosis and challenges in management, is critical to refining therapeutic approaches in captive reptile care.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207