<i>Ex Vivo</i> Evaluation of Carpal Flexion After Partial Carpal Arthrodesis in Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine degrees of flexion after arthrodesis of the antebrachiocarpal (ABC) joint, middle carpal (MC), and carpometacarpal (CMC) joints combined (MC/CMC), and carpometacarpal (CMC) joint alone. STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo study. ANIMALS: Forelimbs (n = 9) from 2- to 10-year-old Quarter Horses (5), Thoroughbred (2), and American Paint Horse (2). METHODS: Using 2 locking compression plates, 3 partial carpal arthrodesis techniques were performed. Cables and deadweights were connected to limbs and each angle of flexion determined 3 times using a protractor and then averaged. Control measurements were obtained before and after arthrodesis, the techniques randomized with Latin square design. Descriptive data were analyzed with Levene's test, Q-Q plots, ANOVA, and Bonferroni test. RESULTS: Mean ± SD carpal flexion results were: controls 150° ± 8°, CMC arthrodesis 149° ± 9°, MC/CMC arthrodesis 43° ± 7.6°, and ABC arthrodesis 25° ± 6.3°. There was no significant reduction in flexion after a CMC arthrodesis compared with controls (P = .21), but there was after ABC (P < .001) and MC/CMC arthrodesis (P < .001), with the ABC arthrodesis significantly reduced compared with an MC/CMC arthrodesis (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Whereas CMC arthrodesis does not affect carpal flexion, CMC/MC and ABC arthrodesis markedly reduce the degree of carpal flexion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".