MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7085733815 · doi:10.56093/nmzjb864

Squamous cell carcinoma in a dog - A case report

2025· article· en· W7085733815 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Veterinary Pathology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeukocytosisBasophilicBasal cellImmunohistochemistryKeratinMitosisSquamous carcinomaCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 12-year-old male Labrador was presented at a local multispecialty hospital in Chennai with a history of having a multinodular, ulcerated, greyish-white mass on the right forelimb near the digits for surgical removal. Various samples, including blood samples, peripheral blood smears, fine needle aspiration smears of the mass, and the excised mass were collected and sent to the Centralized Clinical Laboratory at Madras Veterinary College in Chennai for laboratory diagnosis. Hematological studies revealed anemia and leukocytosis with left shift neutrophilia, while no changes were observed in serum biochemical parameters. Cytological findings showed clusters of large neoplastic squamous epithelial cells with faintly basophilic cytoplasm, containing prominent vesicular single to multiple nuclei and nucleoli. Additionally, anisocytosis, anisokaryosis, mitotic figures and tadpole cells were suggested, indicative of squamous cell carcinoma. Histopathological examination revealed neoplastic cells that were polygonal in shape, containing prominent vesicular nuclei, mitotic figures and variable-sized keratin pearls. Moreover, immunohistochemical studies showed increased expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the cytoplasm of the neoplastic cells, confirming the tumor as squamous cell carcinoma. Based on the current laboratory findings, the tumor was identified as well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma.

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)0.001
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Veterinary PathologySame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207