Treatment of Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis by Arthrodesis in 12 Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate arthrodesis as a treatment for carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis (CMC-OA). STUDY DESIGN: Case series. ANIMALS: Horses (n=12) with CMC-OA. METHODS: Arthrodesis was facilitated by insertion and fanning of a drill bit into the CMC joint at several (3-5) locations in 15 limbs. Follow-up radiographs were obtained for 7 horses (9 limbs). Outcome was determined by telephone survey of owners based on postoperative pain, return to use, appearance of the limb, and success of treatment. RESULTS: Postoperative pain was slight or moderate in 10 of 12 (83%) horses during the first 30 days, and 11 of 12 (92%) horses were markedly improved by 6 months and capable of returning to work. Radiographically 6 CMC joints had a bony ankylosis at follow-up whereas 3 did not (mean 8.7 months). On long-term follow-up (mean 28.6 months) all horses had reduced severity of lameness, 10 of 12 (83%) were considered "sound," 8 (67%) returned to their original activity, and all owners considered arthrodesis highly successful as a treatment. CONCLUSION: A drilling technique that produced CMC arthrodesis, allowed most horses to return to their original activity and was considered successful by all clients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Arthrodesis of the CMC joint should be considered a treatment option for CMC-OA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".