Changes in hoof surface strain distribution in response to moderate exercise in Standardbreds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify changes in hoof wall strain distribution associated with exercise and time in Standardbreds. ANIMALS: 18 young adult Standardbreds. PROCEDURES: 9 horses were exercised 4 d/wk for 30 to 45 minutes at a medium trot for 4 months; 9 nonexercised horses served as the control group. Rosette strain gauges were used to measure the principal surface strains at the toe, lateral quarter of the hoof wall (LQ), and medial quarter of the hoof wall (MQ) of the right forefoot at the beginning and end of the experiment. Midstance maximal (msϵ1) and minimal (msϵ2) principal and peak minimal principal (pkϵ2) surface strains were measured; SDs of each of those variables were also calculated. Results were compared through ANOVA of time and exercise effects between and within the groups. RESULTS: Both the exercised and nonexercised groups had changes in strain distribution in their hooves over time. The msϵ1 did not change significantly with exercise; however, it changed significantly in both groups at both hoof quarters over time. At the beginning of the study, mean msϵ2 and pkϵ2 values were significantly higher in the exercised group than in the control group at the MQ and LQ but not at the toe. At the end of the study, these values were significantly higher in the control group than in the exercised group at the toe but not at the MQ or LQ. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Detected changes in hoof wall surface strain may indicate the ability of hoof capsule material to respond to exercise. A better understanding of hoof adaptation to applied forces may allow implementation of proper trimming and shoeing techniques to promote adaptation to exercise loads 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 | 0.000 | 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".