Reliability of goniometry in Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of goniometry by comparing goniometric measurements with radiographic measurements and evaluate the effects of sedation on range of joint motion. ANIMALS: 16 healthy adult Labrador Retrievers. PROCEDURE: 3 investigators blindly and independently measured range of motion of the carpus, elbow, shoulder, tarsus, stifle, and hip joints of 16 Labrador Retrievers in triplicate before and after dogs were sedated. Radiographs of all joints in maximal flexion and extension were made during under sedation. Goniometric measurements were compared with radiographic measurements. The influence of sedation and the intra- and intertester variability were evaluated; 95% confidence intervals for all ranges of motion were determined. RESULTS: Results of goniometric and radiographic measurements were not significantly different. Results of measurements made by the 3 investigators were not significantly different. Multiple measurements made by 1 investigator varied from 1 to 6 degrees (median, 3 degrees) depending on the joint. Sedation did not influence the range of motion of the evaluated joints. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Goniometry is a reliable and objective method for determining range of motion of joints in healthy Labrador Retrievers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".