MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W225626834

Clinical Radiology of the Horse, 2nd ed.

2002· article· en· W225626834 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles S. Farrow

Notice bibliographique

RevueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineVeterinary
ThématiqueVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineSpecialtyTerminologyLamenessRadiologyPathology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

First published in 1993, Clinical Radiology of the Horse rapidly assumed a position of academic preeminence, especially in Europe, supplanting the existing texts on the subject: Dik's Diagnostic Radiology of the Horse: Parts I to III, and Schebitz's Atlas of Radiographic Anatomy of the Horse. But, in the United States and Canada, Clinical Radiology of the Horse remained relatively unknown, due in part to its publisher being European, its authors being relatively unknown, and its price being prohibitively high — especially for veterinary students. Most North American veterinarians seemed content to use a general radiology text such as Thrall's Textbook of Veterinary Diagnostic Radiology, or equine specialty texts, such as Stashak's Lameness in Horses and Auer's Equine Surgery. Largely because of its extravagant pricing, many predicted that Clinical Radiology of the Horse was commercially doomed. But not so, as evidenced by the recently released 2nd edition. Like its predecessor, the 2nd edition Clinical Radiology of the Horse is divided into 13 chapters. The first, General Principles, deals with a variety of subjects including anatomic terminology, radiation safety and protection, film reading strategies, and the pathophysiology of bone and joint disease. Chapters 2 through 12 are organized anatomically and, for the most part, describe normal and abnormal osteology. The final chapter covers special radiographic procedures. Growth plate closure times, radiographic techniques, and a brief glossary are included at the end of the book. The preface has undergone only minor cosmetic changes. The design of the book — in my opinion, its greatest strength — also remains unchanged. Viewing the numerous large (in some cases nearly life-sized), high quality radiographs and many instructive line drawings, I am reminded of an actual teaching file. The single column text (about 12 to 14 words per line) continues to be immensely readable, owing to its ample spacing, highly legible typeface, and generous margins. The captions are for the most part mercifully brief, and the images tastefully and prudently annotated. The paper is premium stock, accounting for the very high quality radiographic reproductions, while the binding and covers are exceptionally durable, as evidenced by my copy of the 1st edition that looks nearly new after 7 years, even though I've used it regularly. The 2nd edition is about 10% larger than the 1st, due mainly to additional radiographs and line drawings. Nearly all of the original text has been retained intact, with new writings simply being appended to old. The impression one gets when comparing both editions, is that as far as the text was concerned, the authors were content with the status quo. Clinical Radiology of the Horse, 2nd edition, represents a unique effort between publisher and authors, resulting in a marvelously informative one-of-a-kind textbook, which has no competitors. But excellence has its price, in this case nearly $400 after taxes, which is about 66 cents a page (extremely high for a veterinary textbook). In addition to price, I have another concern, there are no references (or at least no references in the traditional sense). The authors' use of “Further Reading,” without specific in-text citations troubles me for 2 reasons. First, those whose ideas and labors form the foundation for our present equine radiological knowledge and from whom the authors appear to have borrowed liberally remain anonymous. I believe they deserve better. Second, both current pedagogical and medical practice require that one learn to think critically, especially about outcomes. Unfortunately, this is not possible with an unreferenced text like Clinical Radiology of the Horse, 2nd edition, where opinion and fact are too often inseparable. As a colleague recently reminded me, “Scholarship isn't supposed to be easy.” And finally with respect to any future editions, I recommend that the authors confine their efforts to what they appear to know best, medical imaging, and not dabble in therapeutics. For example, on page 153 when describing angular limb deformities, the authors tentatively conclude, “To correct the condition wedge osteotomy may be considered.” This is far too complex an issue to be dealt with in so trivial a manner.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,075
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,250

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0750,052

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,119
Tête enseignante GPT0,352
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations17
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEurope PMC (PubMed Central)Même sujetVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchTravaux en français237 207