The use of veterinary cuttable plates for carpal and tarsal arthrodesis in small dogs and cats.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study was to evaluate, retrospectively, carpal and tarsal arthrodesis in small dogs and cats by using veterinary cuttable plates in 6 animals and comparing those with arthrodesis stabilized with other implants in 9 animals. Veterinary cuttable plates were used for 1 pancarpal, 2 partial tarsal, and 3 pantarsal arthrodeses. Other implants were used to stabilize 1 pancarpal, 6 partial tarsal, and 2 pantarsal arthrodeses. In the veterinary cuttable plates group, complications included 2 cases with pressure sores and 1 case with screw loosening. One animal was lost to follow-up and 4 of the remaining 5 were always weight-bearing. In the other group, there were 2 cases with pressure sores, 1 case with dermatitis, and 2 cases with pin migration. Six out of 9 animals were always weight-bearing. The use of veterinary cuttable plates appears to be a suitable option with a good clinical outcome.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".