Changes in growth of the hoof wall and hoof morphology in response to regular periods of trotting exercise in Standardbreds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantitate changes in hoof wall growth and hoof morphology induced by mild exercise in Standardbreds. ANIMALS: 18 Standardbreds. PROCEDURES: Horses were exercised at approximately 6 m/s (4,200 to 5,600 m/d) on 4 d/wk for 17 weeks. Both exercise (n = 9) and nonexercise (control group; 9) groups were housed in a large paddock throughout the study. At the beginning and end of the study, right forelimb feet of all horses were digitally photographed and underwent magnetic resonance imaging. Hoof wall measurements were obtained from the images to evaluate hoof wall growth and morphometric variables. Data were compared between the groups and within each group via a quadratic model. Changes in each variable and pairwise correlations between variables were evaluated. RESULTS: Morphometric variables did not significantly differ between the control and exercise groups. However, differences within each group between the start and the end of the study were significant for several variables; overall, values for hoof wall variables increased and those for solar variables decreased. Between the beginning and the end of the study, the amount of variation in values of hoof capsule variables in the exercise group decreased to a greater extent, compared with control group findings. Patterns of pairwise correlations for variables differed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In Standardbreds, mild exercise for 17 weeks caused no significant changes in hoof wall growth or morphometric variables. Subtle changes may develop in equine hooves in response to loading, and mild exercise may not be a strong adaptive stimulus.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".