ESTUDO COMPARATIVO E ANÁLISE INTEROBSERVADOR ENTRE DOIS MÉTODOS DE AVALIAÇÂO DA DISPLASIA COXOFEMORAL DE CÃES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Os objetivos desse trabalho foram avaliar as dificuldades da execução do método PennHIP no diagnóstico da displasia coxofemoral, comparar essa modalidade com a empregada pelo CBRV e determinar a influência do treinamento na interpretação por meio de uma análise interobservador. Foram utilizados 15 cães da raça Labrador, realizou-se exame radiográfico conforme as recomendações do CBRV e análise da distração articular. A comparação entre as técnicas se deu de forma subjetiva e pela concordância Kappa(K) quando na análise interobservador. Os valores de foram K= 0,44 moderada pelo método diagnóstico convencional e K=1,0 quase perfeita pelo método PennHIP, todavia, houve maior variabilidade no PennHIP quando na comparação entre os membros. Conclui-se que apesar das dificuldades o método PennHIP deve ser introduzido na rotina de avaliação radiográfica para pesquisa da displasia em conjunto com a avaliação recomendada pelo CBRV.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".