Tibial plateau angle in four common canine breeds with cranial cruciate ligament rupture, and its relationship to meniscal tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare tibial plateau angle (TPA) among Labrador Retrievers, Rottweilers, Boxers, and German Shepherd Dogs that had undergone tibial plateau leveling osteotomies (TPLO) for cranial cruciate ligament disease, and to determine if higher TPAs are associated with increased risk for concurrent meniscal injury. METHODS: This was a retrospective study including 275 client-owned dogs of one of the four aforementioned breeds that received TPLO radiographs between 1999 and 2005 prior to undergoing the TPLO procedure. The TPA measured by the original surgeon was compared among four breeds and analyzed with respect to presence or absence of meniscal injury diagnosed via arthroscopy or arthrotomy at the time of surgery. RESULTS: Labrador Retrievers, Rottweilers, Boxers, and German Shepherd Dogs had mean TPAs of 25.9 degrees , 26.2 degrees , 25.9 degrees , and 28.2 degrees , respectively. The TPA of German Shepherd Dogs was significantly higher than that of the other breeds of dogs examined. TPA higher than the mean for dogs in this study did not significantly increase the risk for concurrent meniscal injury. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: German Shepherd Dogs with cranial cruciate ligament disease had a significantly higher TPA compared to the other breeds examined. Higher TPA did not increase the likelihood of meniscal tears in this study. However, several variables that were not assessed, including the degree of cranial cruciate ligament integrity at the time of surgery and the time between original CrCL deficiency and surgical assessment, could have affected this analysis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 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".