MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Digital analysis of ulnar trochlear notch sclerosis in Labrador retrievers

2007· article· en· W1977391634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neil J. Burton, Eithne Comerford, Michael Bailey, M. J. Pead, M. R. Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Animal Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKU Leuven
KeywordsCoronoid processMedicineElbowAnatomyRadiodensityRadiographyOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare ulnar trochlear notch bone radiopacity in Labrador retrievers with and without fragmented medial coronoid process using quantitative analysis of film density on digitised radiographs. METHODS: Mediolateral view elbow radiographs from Labrador retrievers (n=34) aged between six and 18 months were obtained and digitised. Images from dogs with an arthroscopic diagnosis of fragmentation of the medial coronoid process (n=17) were compared with that of a control population (n=17), and this data subject to statistical analysis. RESULTS: A statistically significant relationship between the presence of increased trochlear notch radiopacity and a fragmented medial coronoid process was identified. Fractional analysis of this area shows the region of greatest difference in radiopacity between normal and fragmented medial coronoid process cohorts to be in the trochlear region of the medial coronoid process of the ulna. A decrease in radiopacity values in the dysplastic group versus the normal cohort was observed for the region of the proximo-caudal ulnar trochlear notch. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: An increase in ulnar trochlear notch radiopacity is a finding associated with fragmentation of the medial coronoid process in Labrador retrievers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Small Animal PracticeSame topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207