Contact Mechanics and Three‐Dimensional Alignment of Normal Dog Elbows
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of antebrachial rotation at 3 elbow flexion angles on contact mechanics and 3-dimensional (3D) alignment of normal dog elbows. STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo biomechanical study. ANIMALS: Unpaired thoracic limbs from 18 dogs (mean ± SD weight, 27 ± 4 kg). METHODS: With the limb under 200 N axial load, digital pressure sensors measured contact area (CA), mean contact pressure (MCP), peak contact pressure (PCP), and PCP location in the medial and lateral elbow compartments, and 3D static poses of the elbow were obtained. Each specimen was tested at 115°, 135°, and 155° elbow flexion, with the antebrachium in a neutral position, in 28° supination, and in 16° pronation. Repeated measure ANOVAs with post-hoc Bonferroni (P ≤ .0167) were performed. RESULTS: Both pronation and supination decreased CA by 16% and 8% and increased PCP by 5% and 10% in the medial and lateral compartments, respectively. PCP location moved 2.3 mm (1.8-3.2 mm) closer to the apex of the medial coronoid process in pronation and 2.0 mm (1.8-2.2 mm) farther away in supination. The radial head and medial coronoid process rotated 5.4° and 1.9° internally during pronation and 7.2° and 1.2° externally during supination. CONCLUSIONS: Contact mechanics and 3D alignment of normal dog elbows varied significantly at different elbow poses.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it