Density and morphologic features of primary epidermal laminae in the feet of three-year-old racing Quarter Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the density of primary epidermal laminae (PELs) around the solar circumference and evaluate the relationship between regional PEL density and hoof capsule morphology in horses. SAMPLE POPULATION: Forefeet from nine 3-year-old Quarter Horse cadavers. PROCEDURES: Data pertaining to gross features of hoof morphology and PEL variables, including number, density, and distribution patterns around the perimeter of the hoof wall and number of bar PELs, were collected. Tissues of the laminar junction were examined histologically. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between left and right forefeet with respect to gross hoof morphologic measurements. Mean +/- SD number of PELs, including those at the bars of the hoof, was 551 +/- 30. Primary epidermal laminar density in the toe was significantly higher, compared with that in the quarter and heel regions, and was higher on the lateral aspect of the foot, compared with the medial aspect. Feet were significantly wider on the lateral aspect of the foot, compared with the medial aspect, as measured across the widest point of the solar surface. Histologic examination revealed atypical laminar morphology at the toe. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Variations were detected in PEL density and morphology around the solar circumference of hooves from 3-year-old racing Quarter Horses. A better understanding of relationships between laminar density, laminar morphology, and gross morphology of the hoof capsule in different populations of horses may aid practitioners in diagnosis and treatment of disease involving the hoof wall in horses.
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 | 0.001 | 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".