Effect of hoof angle on joint contact area in the equine metacarpophalangeal joint following simulated impact loading <i>ex vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: To add to the existing data on impact loading of the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint as a precursor to assessing the potential role of impact in joint disease. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of impact loading on contact areas of the first phalanx (P1) and proximal sesamoids (PS) with the third metacarpal (McIII) under 3 hoof-strike conditions (toe-first, flat, heel-first). STUDY DESIGN: Randomised, repeated controlled experiment using cadaver material. METHODS: Eight cadaver limbs were subjected to randomised, repeated controlled trials where the hoof was struck by a pendulum impact machine (impact velocity 3.55 m/s) under 3 strike conditions. Data from pressure sensitive film placed over medial and lateral McIII condyles and lateromedially across the dorsal aspect of McIII were quantified: total areas of P1 and PS contact (cm(2) ) at maximum recorded pressure; centroid locations of contact areas relative to the sagittal ridge (cm) and transverse ridge (cm) and dispersion of pixels (cm(4) ) for each McIII condyle (medial/lateral). The effect of the strike conditions on each variable were statistically tested using repeated-measures ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Contact area between P1 and McIII condyles fell in well-defined areas bounded by the sagittal and transverse ridge, contact areas from PS were smaller and widely dispersed across McIII palmar border. Ratio of contact area of P1 to PS was 2.83 (P<0001). Hoof strike had no significant effect on contact area (P>0.54) CONCLUSIONS: Contact at impact (primarily from P1 and distally situated on McIII), contrasts with contact areas at midstance from both P1 and PS, symmetrically placed. Under impact, the greatest contact area was on the dorsal aspect of the medial condyle and coincides with the area subjected to the greatest increase in subchondral bone stiffening in joint disease.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".