The Effect of Tibial Plateau Angle on Ground Reaction Forces 4–17 Months After Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy in Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between postoperative tibial plateau angle (TPA) and ground reaction forces (GRFs) in Labrador Retrievers at least 4-months after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective longitudinal study. ANIMALS: Thirty-two Labrador Retrievers with unilateral cranial cruciate ligament disease that had TPLO and concurrent meniscal surgery. METHODS: TPA and GRFs were measured pre- and > or = 4 months postoperatively. Preoperative GRFs, preoperative TPA, duration of injury, postoperative TPA and degree of rotation were each compared with postoperative GRFs using correlation analysis. Dogs were also grouped by postoperative TPA and compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Postoperative function was compared with meniscal release/meniscectomy, patient age, sex, body weight and follow-up time using ANOVA. RESULTS: No significant relationship was found between preoperative GRFs, preoperative TPA, duration of injury, postoperative TPA, degree of rotation, or meniscal release/meniscectomy and postoperative function. Mean preoperative GRFs for all dogs were 28.8 +/- 9.5 for peak vertical force (PVF) and 9.3 +/- 3.1 for peak vertical impulse (VI). Mean postoperative GRFs for all dogs were 40.4 +/- 5.0 for PVF and 14.1 +/- 1.9 for VI. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant relationship was found between postoperative TPA and GRFs after TPLO > or = 4 months after surgery, where the postoperative angle was between 0 and 14 degrees. No significant relationship was found between the preoperative TPA and postoperative function. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Limb function in Labrador Retrievers was not affected by postoperative TPA and re-operation for cases with a postoperative TPA between 0 and 14 degrees is not recommended.
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".