MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7151725596

Sentinel lymph node mapping in canine mast cell tumours

2025· article· en· W7151725596 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ligita Zorgevica-Pockeviča

Bibliographic record

VenueLithuanian University of Health Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVeterinary Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphLymphadenectomySentinel lymph nodeLymph nodeStage (stratigraphy)Lymphatic systemGamma probe
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mast cell tumours (MCT) are the most common malignant skin tumours in dogs. MCTs occur in middleaged dogs with a breed-specific predisposition, e.g. Boxers, Boston Terriers, Weimaraners, Shar-Peis, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Beagles, and Schnauzers. Cutaneous MCT tumours metastasise first to the sentinel lymph nodes and regional lymph nodes and then to distant sites such as the spleen, liver, or bone marrow. The presence of metastases in the lymph nodes (LN), indicating at least stage II disease, is relatively common and a proven negative prognostic indicator [1]. Early detection of LN metastases is crucial for prognosis and better patient care. Accurate detection of metastasised LN prior to surgical excision is difficult. Fine needle aspirates of LN for the detection of MCT metastases have a low sensitivity of 31% [2]. Dogs with low-grade MCTs have a good prognosis after surgical excision of the primary tumour and elective lymphadenectomy of the early metastatic regional LN [3]. Sentinel, lymph node mapping is therefore very important. The mapping of sentinel lymph nodes is described: lymphoscintigraphy, colourimetric SLN mapping (using the peritumour injection of blue dye or indocyanine green), radiological lymphography (also known as direct lymphography or radiography), indirect lymphangiography, computed tomography lymphangiography (CTL), near-infrared fluorescence/near-infrared fluorescence-guided lymphography (NIR/NIR-LND) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) [4].

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 venueLithuanian University of Health SciencesSame topicVeterinary Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207