Aproximación diagnóstica a un linfoma multicentrico en canino: de lo clínico a lo histopatológico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Se describe el caso de un canino hembra de 7 años de edad, raza labrador residente zona rural de Florencia Caquetá Colombia, cuyo motivo de consulta fue una lesión circunscrita en el miembro posterior derecho, hiperqueratosis de pulpejos y trufa, hipotricosis y uñas largas. Dentro del diagnóstico presuntivo se sospecha de leishmaniasis. Se realizo examen clínico completo, posteriormente pruebas complementarias como el hemograma, Hemoparásitos, citología, coprológico, uroanálisis, raspado profundo de piel, química sanguínea, y examen complementario biopsia; el cual dio como resultado tumor maligno de células redondas considerándose sospecha de linfoma. Debido al deplorable estado de salud y bienestar se decidió instaurar eutanasia y realizar análisis Histopatológico para determinación de diagnóstico definitivo. Las alteraciones a la necropsia de mayor afectación se situaron en el hígado y riñones.El resultado final de la histopatología termina definiendo un proceso tumoral altamente maligno y agresivo que muestra unas evidencias clínicas que direccionaban el caso y es la evaluación histológica la herramienta de un hallazgo inicialmente no contemplado.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".