MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414751451

Canine oral papillary squamous cell carcinoma with lymph node metastasis in a dog.

2025· article· en· W4414751451 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hidetoshi Ito, Shiori Ito, Hirotaka Kondo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymph nodeLymphMetastasisChemotherapyDistant metastasisRadiation therapyBasal cell
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canine oral papillary squamous cell carcinoma is a rare subtype of squamous cell carcinoma with low metastatic potential. This report describes a 6-month-old intact male Labrador retriever dog with a 2.2 × 2.1-centimeter intraoral mass located in the gingiva between the 1st and 2nd right mandibular premolars. Computed tomography revealed an exophytic mass infiltrating the mandible and right mandibular gingiva without evidence of regional lymph node enlargement or distant metastasis. Histopathological evaluation confirmed canine oral papillary squamous cell carcinoma with metastasis to the right mandibular lymph node (surgically removed) and carboplatin was administered postoperatively. At 1404 d post-surgery, no local recurrence or distant metastasis were observed. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first reported case of canine oral papillary squamous cell carcinoma metastasizing to the lymph nodes. The dog was treated with chemotherapy after surgery and had a good long-term prognosis. Key clinical message: Canine oral papillary squamous cell carcinoma has not been reported to metastasize and is usually treated locally with surgery or radiation therapy. However, as in the case reported herein, metastasis to the lymph nodes may occur. In such cases, accurate evaluation of metastasis, including lymph node excision biopsy, and chemotherapy may need to be considered.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 venuePubMedSame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207