MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anthropometric measurements of the scapula, humerus, radius and ulna in Labrador dogs with and without elbow dysplasia

2008· article· en· W1506275650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
PT Davidson, J. E. Bullock‐Saxton, A. Lisle

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Veterinary Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScapulaUlnaMedicineHumerusElbowAnthropometryAnatomyOrthodonticsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if anthropometric measurements of the Labrador scapula, humerus, ulna and radius, or their ratios, are related to the presence of elbow dysplasia (ED). METHODS: Digital calliper measurements of the lengths of the left scapula, humerus, radius and ulna, and their ratios, were analysed by gender in 103 volunteer Labradors (41 dogs, 62 bitches) against the ED radiological scores derived by the International Elbow Working Group (IEWG). The IEWG score is an umbrella score used to classify for ED and includes fragmented coronoid process, osteochondritis dessicans, incongruity and ununited anconeal process, the last of which occurs rarely in Labradors. RESULTS: Of the 103 Labradors studied, 31 were diagnosed radiographically with ED (20 bitches (32%), 11 (27%) dogs). Scapula length was significantly shorter for bitches with ED (P = 0.02), but not for dogs with ED. However, dogs showed a trend for a difference in the ulna:radius ratio (P = 0.06), which bitches did not. Although a greater percentage of bitches than dogs had ED in this study, the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Labrador bitches diagnosed with ED have a shorter scapula, which is a new finding associated with this condition. The difference in presentation associated with gender is unexpected and further research is recommended.

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)0.000
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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Veterinary JournalSame topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207