Comparison of three distraction methods and conventional radiography for early diagnosis of canine hip dysplasia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two radiographic distraction techniques (one employing a wooden lath and, the other, a PennHip distractor), an ultrasonographic distraction method and conventional radiographic Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI) hip score were evaluated in eight-month-old Labrador retrievers to determine the most reliable method for predicting radiographic FCI hip score at the age of one year. With reference to the FCI hip score, sensitivity and specificity of the PennHip method were 100 per cent and 54 per cent; sensitivity and specificity of the lath technique were 85 per cent and 71 per cent; whereas they were 62 per cent and 67 per cent for the ultrasonographic method. For all distraction methods, the positive predictive value (PPV) was moderate and the negative predictive value (NPV) was high. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 100 per cent for the FCI hip score. It is concluded that, at the age of eight months, FCI hip score is the most reliable method for predicting FCI hip score at the age of one year in the colony of dogs investigated. Both the PennHip and lath method were also clinically reliable techniques in predicting true negatives. The ultrasonographic distraction method was moderately reliable.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it