Radiographic Measurement of the Proximal and Distal Mechanical Joint Angles in the Canine Tibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe a method for radiographic measurement of proximal and distal mechanical joint angles of the canine tibia. Normal ranges were established for a population of dogs, and specifically, Labrador retrievers, with cranial cruciate ligament rupture. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Tibiae (n=105) of dogs evaluated for cranial cruciate ligament rupture; 70 tibiae were from Labrador retrievers, 35 tibiae were from other breeds. METHODS: Anatomic landmarks were established and craniocaudal radiographs were used to measure the mechanical medial proximal (mMPTA) and distal (mMDTA) tibial angles in the frontal plane. RESULTS: Means (+/-SD) for all tibiae were mMPTA, 93.30+/-1.78 degrees, and mMDTA, 95.99+/-2.70 degrees. For Labrador retrievers, means were mMPTA, 93.38+/-1.81 degrees, and mMDTA 96.34+/-2.51 degrees. No significant differences were detected between Labrador Retrievers and non-Labrador retrievers with respect to mMPTA (power=0.5) or mMDTA (power=0.342). Labrador Retrievers were significantly younger than non-Labradors (P=.003). CONCLUSION: A method for measurement of the mechanical joint angles of the canine tibia in the frontal plane was established and reference ranges for a population of dogs and Labrador Retrievers with cranial cruciate ligament rupture are reported. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The established method of measurement and references ranges can be used to aid in diagnosis, determining indications, and surgical planning for angular limb deformities of the tibia, especially when affected bilaterally. The methodology and reference values may also be used for postoperative critique.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".