Comparison between palpation and ultrasonography for evaluation of experimentally induced effusion in the distal interphalangeal joint of horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To ultrasonographically quantify experimentally induced effusion of the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint of horses and compare results with those obtained with palpation. SAMPLE: 8 forelimbs from equine cadavers and forelimbs of 5 mares. PROCEDURES: Preliminary ex vivo experiments were performed to validate the methods. Then, the DIP joints of the forelimbs of standing horses were serially distended with saline (0.9% NaCl) solution (1, 4, and 10 mL) by injection through an intra-articular catheter. Two ultrasonographers measured distension of the dorsal recess of the DIP joint, and 2 surgeons, who were not aware of the volume injected, graded joint effusion by palpation. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver repeatability was excellent for ultrasonographic measurements. Interobserver agreement for use of palpation to detect joint distension was moderate (κ = 0.45). There was an overall increase in the palpation distension grade with an increase in injected volume. Sensitivity for detection with palpation of larger volumes (4 and 10 mL) was high (92% and 100%, respectively). However, sensitivity was lower (57%) for detection with palpation of minimal distension (1 mL). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although palpation provided a reliable clinical assessment of DIP joint effusion for volumes of 4 to 10 mL, ultrasonographic measurements were easy to obtain, more accurate, and able to detect smaller amounts of distension. This may be clinically relevant for the assessment of effusion of the DIP joint that can arise in horses with early osteoarthritis or infectious arthritis with concomitant soft tissue swelling that precludes accurate assessment with palpation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".