Comparison of 2 Equine Transfixation Pin Casts and the Effects of Pin Removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To (1) compare strain on the dorsal aspect of the proximal phalanx (P1) between 2 types of transfixation pin casts (TPC) and (2) evaluate the change in strain as the pins are removed. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental. ANIMALS: Equine cadaver forelimbs (n = 10 pair). METHODS: Each limb of a pair was assigned to 1 of 2 TPC constructs. Construct 1 consisted of a TPC with 2 positive profile, centrally threaded pins placed in the distal aspect of the third metacarpus (MC3) and construct 2 had 4 smooth Steinmann pins placed similarly. A strain gauge was mounted on P1 and axial compression (444.8-5337.9 N) applied. One forelimb of each pair was tested as a control with no construct in place. The 2 TPC groups were retested after removal of 1 proximal (n = 5 limbs) or distal (n = 5) pin from construct 1, and 2 proximal (n = 5) or distal (n = 5) pins from construct 2. Limb specimens were retested after all pins had been removed. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in strain between both TPC constructs and the non-casted control at all loads except 444.8 N. There was no significant difference in strain reduction between the 2 TPC constructs. After proximal pin removal there was a 7% (construct 1) and 10% (construct 2) increase in strain. When distal pins were removed there was a 0.5% (construct 1) and 1% (construct 2) increase in strain. The difference between proximal and distal pin removal was only statistically different from each other at high loads. CONCLUSION: Both constructs provided equivalent reduction in strain. Removal of the proximal pin(s) increased the strain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".