Lumbosacral foraminal ratios and areas using MRI in medium-sized dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine conventional magnetic resonance imaging planes of the lumbosacral foramina to obtain objective measurements of foraminal size in medium-sized (20-28 kg) normal dogs. METHOD: Ten canine cadavers were evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging in neutral, flexed and extended position. Foraminal ratios, areas and lumbosacral angles were calculated and their relationship to body weight was evaluated. RESULTS: Foraminal ratios were found to be independent of body weight in medium sized dogs (p >0.42). Foraminal areas were dependent on body weight (p <0.05). Flexion and extension were shown to significantly change both the foraminal ratio and area. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Lumbosacral foraminal stenosis is common in working dogs. Foraminal ratios were evaluated in medium-sized dogs and were found to be independent of body weight, which may provide objective evaluation of surgical decompression techniques if calculated pre- and post-surgery. Foraminal areas were not independent of body weight.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".