Ultrasonic and radiographic study of laxity in hip joints of young dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, 22 hip joints of Whippet (four), Rottweiler (five) and Labrador Retriever (two) young dogs were evaluated with the aim of comparing the ultrasonic examination of coxofemoral joints with the radiographic evaluations, both distraction and conventional procedures, for the early diagnosis of passive laxity. The study was based on static ultrasonography, conventional radiography (CR) and distraction radiography (DR) methods. In order to quantify the relationship between the femur head and the acetabulum, the alpha (alpha) and gamma (gamma) angles were measured by ultrasonographic examination, the Norberg angle (NA) was measured by CR, and the distraction index (DI) was measured by DR. It was observed a negative correlation between angles alpha and gamma (r= -0,756; P<0.001) and correlation between DI and NA (r= -0.474; P<0.026). No correlation was observed between angles alpha and gamma in relation to DI and NA (alpha and DI: r= -0.380; P<0.081; alpha and NA: r= 0.013; P<0.954; gamma and DI: r= 0.338; P<0.124; gamma and NA: r= -0.192; P<0.391). The static ultrasonographic did not prove to be a sensitive method to earlier detection of passive laxity of coxofemoral joints in dogs aging 14 and 15 day-old. The distraction index of DR was efficient in early detecting the passive laxity in dogs averaging five months old, when compared to the NA of CR. Two false negative dogs were detected by the DI. The CR method was relevant to detect osteoarthritis alterations, helping the diagnosis of hip dysplasia (HD).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".