Quantitative morphology of the equine laminar junction in relation to capsule shape in the forehoof of Standardbreds and Thoroughbreds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Differences in hoof morphology have largely been underappreciated in the literature until recently, and it is these that hold the key to interpreting functional adaptation in the hoof. HYPOTHESES: Primary laminar morphology correlates with hoof capsule shape; and breeds with different hoof shapes and loadings show different patterns of correlation. METHODS: Seventeen measurements of capsule shape and 3 of primary epidermal laminae (PEL) morphology (spacing, orientation and curvature) were made on right and left front hooves from 27 Standardbred and 25 Thoroughbred horses, and tested for breed differences. Three laminar variables (spacing, orientation and curvature) were measured on each hoof for samples of 25 PEL in 5 circumferential and 4 proximodistal locations. Pairwise correlations of capsular and laminar measurements were compared within breeds. Significant correlations were mapped onto the 20 sampling sites. RESULTS: Capsule shape differed significantly between breeds in 7 measurements and in a multivariate test. Between breeds, PEL differed in orientation and spacing primarily at the medial quarters and heels, and in curvature at both quarters (P<0.05). Significant correlations between several pairs of capsule and laminar variables were found at sample locations that differed markedly between breeds. CONCLUSIONS: Laminar morphology, hoof capsule shape and correlations between them differ between Standardbreds and Thoroughbreds. These results support the concept that remodelling of PEL is, at least in part, stimulated and directed by varying stress or strain levels in the laminar junction. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the biological responses of hoof tissues to stress should add to the ability to prevent lameness involving the hoof and maintain its health.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".