Comparative anatomy of the proximal tibia in healthy Labrador Retrievers and Yorkshire Terriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 1) To provide specific quantitative data of tibial conformation in Labrador Retrievers and Yorkshire Terriers; 2) To compare the tibial conformation of these two breeds; and 3) To compare these data with previously reported data. METHODS: Mediolateral radiographs of the stifle were obtained from 30 consecutive Labrador Retrievers and 30 consecutive Yorkshire Terriers with an angle of extension of 135°. The tibial plateau angle (TPA), the angle between the tibial plateau and the patellar tendon (PTA), the Z angle, the distal tibial axis/proximal tibial axis angle (DPA), and the relative tibial tuberosity width (rTTW) were measured and compared among the two breeds. RESULTS: The breed had a significant effect on all of the measured variables (p <0.01): Labrador Retrievers had a lower TPA (25 ± 3° compared to 30 ± 4°), a lower Z angle (58.8 ± 3.2° compared to 69.2 ± 4.5°), a lower DPA (4.5 ± 2.3° compared to 10.8 ± 4.3°), and a lower rTTW (0.74 ± 0.1 compared to 0.86 ± 0.1) than Yorkshire Terriers. The PTA was greater in Labrador Retrievers compared to Yorkshire Terriers (106.9 ± 3.9° compared to 103.7 ± 6.5°). Four correlations were found to be significant: the DPA angle was correlated with the TPA, the Z angle, and the rTTW. The TPA was also correlated with the Z angle. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The variation in tibial conformation between breeds should be taken into account when studying the role of each measured parameter in the pathology of cruciate disease. When the relevance of each of the aforementioned measured parameters is better understood, it may help determine the most appropriate surgical treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".