Vet. Pathol. 23:411-417 (1986) Hereditary Myopathy in Labrador Retrievers: A Morphologic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Skeletal muscle and peripheral nerve were obtained over several years from 12 Labrador retrievers with signs of hereditary myopathy. Biopsy and necropsy samples were examined by histology and histochemistry. Despite normal findings in peripheral nerves, a wide range of morphologic changes were observed in muscle including features generally considered characteristic of neurogenic disease. These included small and large muscle fiber group atrophy, presence of small angular fibers, and occasional fiber type grouping. Other prominent changes in muscle were increased numbers of internal nuclei, architectural disturbances, type I1 fiber deficiency, necrosis, regeneration, and fibrosis-all of which are more usually associated with destructive myopathies or muscular dystrophies. The pathology of this condition, therefore, includes features of both neurogenic and myopathic disease, while the underlying pathophysiology remains unclear. An inherited myopathy of Labrador retrieversz3 was first described by Kramer and others in 1976.22 There have since been reports of a clinically similar disease both in the United States and in Great Britain.19~25~30 Affected dogs show a decreased exercise tolerance, stiff, stilted gait and marked atrophy, and hypotonia of skel-
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".