Use of porcine small intestinal submucosa for reconstruction of a soft palate defect following marginal resection of a melanoma in a dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 12-year-old castrated male golden retriever was referred for evaluation of a palatal mass. Computed tomography identified a 2.7 × 2.0 × 1.5 cm soft tissue mass extending from the caudal aspect of the hard palate to the rostral soft palate. Bilateral caudal maxillectomy was declined by owners; thus, a marginal resection was performed. The resultant palatal defect was closed using porcine small intestinal submucosa. Histopathology was consistent with a poorly pigmented malignant melanoma. The dog recovered well with no incisional complications or difficulty eating. The dog was euthanased 22 months postoperatively by the referring veterinarian. At the time of euthanasia, no evidence of local recurrence was noted. This report describes the novel use of porcine small intestinal submucosa for closure of a full-thickness palatal defect following marginal resection of a malignant oral melanoma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".