Comparison of Tibial Plateau Angles in Normal and Cranial Cruciate Deficient Stifles of Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate tibial plateau angles (TPA) in normal and cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) deficient stifles of Labrador retrievers. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. ANIMALS: Eighty-one client-owned purebred Labrador retrievers. METHODS: Lateral radiographs of the tibia were obtained from 2 groups of dogs. Group I (42 dogs) had CCL rupture diagnosed by arthrotomy or arthroscopy. Group II (39 dogs) had no history of orthopedic problems, no radiographic evidence of CCL rupture, and dogs were >8 years of age. The tibial axis and the tibial plateau were determined on the radiographs, and the TPA was measured using image measurement software. The TPA measurement results of groups I and II were compared. RESULTS: Group I (CCL rupture) had a mean TPA (+/-SD) of 23.5 (+/-3.1) degrees, and group II (normal) had a mean TPA (+/-SD) of 23.6 (+/-3.5) degrees. With a P value of.97, no statistical difference was detected between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: No correlation between the magnitude of TPA and CCL rupture was identified in this group of Labrador retrievers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In Labrador retrievers, TPA should not be used as a predictor of CCL rupture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".