MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tibial tuberosity advancement in 92 canine stifles: initial results, clinical outcome and owner evaluation

2010· article· en· W1554768841 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N L Dymond, SE Goldsmid, DJ Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Veterinary Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamenessMedicineCruciate ligamentSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyAnterior cruciate ligament

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes, complications and owners' evaluation of the tibial tuberosity advancement (TTA) procedure in canine stifles. METHODS: A retrospective study of hospital records was performed to identify dogs diagnosed with partial or complete cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) rupture that had undergone TTA repair. Information obtained included signalment, period of lameness, surgical report, evidence of meniscal injury, postoperative recovery and peri-operative complications. Owners were asked to assess the long-term outcome. RESULTS: In a total of 72 dogs (median age, 6 years; median body weight, 34.8 kg), TTA was performed in 92 stifles. Twenty breeds were represented, with Labrador Retrievers and Rottweilers the most common. The period of lameness ranged from 3 days to 24 months. The median pre-operative lameness score was 3/4 and meniscal injury was present in 51 stifles. Minor complications occurred in 29% of cases. Major complications occurred in 6.5% of cases and consisted of meniscal injury and two tibial tuberosity fractures. All were successfully managed, with good limb function when subsequently assessed. In the owner evaluation, 96% reported moderate to great improvement postoperatively, with no lameness at rest and mild to no lameness after vigorous exercise. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcome and owner evaluations in this case series indicate favourable results can be expected when CCL-deficient stifles are treated with TTA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.318
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations55
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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