MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055750551 · doi:10.2460/javma.2001.219.1242

Comparison of three radiographic methods for diagnosis of hip dysplasia in eight-month-old dogs

2001· article· en· W2055750551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
George Lust, Rory J. Todhunter, Hollis N. Erb, Nathan L. Dykes, Alma J. Williams, Nancy Burton‐Wurster, James P. Farese

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsMedicineHip dysplasiaRadiographyDysplasiaOsteoarthritisCohortSubluxationRadiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of the extended-hip radiographic (EHR) score, the distraction index (DI), and the dorsolateral subluxation (DLS) score for identifying hip dysplasia in dogs at 8 months of age. DESIGN: Cohort study ANIMALS: 129 Labrador Retrievers, Greyhounds, and Labrador Retriever-Greyhound crossbreds. PROCEDURE: Radiography was performed when dogs were 8 months of age. Dogs were euthanatized at 8 to 36 months of age; hip dysplasia was diagnosed at the time of necropsy on the basis of results of a gross examination of the articular cartilage of the hip joints for signs of osteoarthritis. RESULTS: The EHR score, DI, and DLS score at 8 months of age were all significantly correlated with degree of cartilage degeneration at necropsy. Sensitivity and specificity of using EHR score at 8 months of age to diagnose hip dysplasia (scores > 3 were considered abnormal) were 38 and 96%, respectively; sensitivity and specificity of using DI (values > 0.7 were considered abnormal) were 50 and 89%; and sensitivity and specificity of using DLS score (scores < 55% were considered abnormal) were 83 and 84%. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggested that specificities of the 3 methods for diagnosing hip dysplasia in dogs at 8 months of age were similar. However, the DLS score had higher sensitivity, indicating that there were fewer false-negative results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical AssociationSame topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207