MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411180791 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2025.1580306

Case Report: Infiltrative multifocal meningioangiomatosis affecting the spinal cord of a young Labrador Retriever

2025· article· en· W4411180791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hana Gunovska, S. Degl’Innocenti, Mike Targett, Inés Carrera, Sérgio A. Gomes

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabrador RetrieverMedicineSpinal cordAnatomyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meningioangiomatosis is a rare leptomeningeal and meningovascular proliferative disorder of the central nervous system. Predilection site in dogs is the brainstem, with scarce reports of unifocal spinal meningioangiomatosis. This is the first case report of multifocal spinal meningioangiomatosis affecting the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions. A 2-year-old male Labrador Retriever presented for progressive ambulatory paraparesis. Vertebral column MRI revealed two presumed intramedullary space-occupying lesions, at T8-9 (large, occupying most of the spinal cord) and L3-4 (smaller, confined to grey matter); both T2-weighted hyperintense, T1-weighted isointense with contrast enhancement. Surgical exploration with durotomy revealed a unresectable well-defined mass distinct from the parenchyma of the spinal cord. Following neurological deterioration, euthanasia was performed. Multifocal to coalescing leptomeningeal and meningovascular proliferations consistent with were found on necropsy, many non-visible on MRI. This case highlights a possible differential diagnosis for multifocal spinal intramedullary masses in young dogs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207