Comparison of tibial plateau angle between clinically normal Greyhounds and Labrador Retrievers with and without rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare tibial plateau angle (TPA) between Greyhounds without damage to the cranial cruciate ligaments and Labrador Retrievers with and without damage to the cranial cruciate ligaments. DESIGN: Clinical study. ANIMALS: 87 client-owned dogs and 15 research colony Greyhounds. PROCEDURE: Standing position, horizontal-beam radiography was performed on Greyhounds and unaffected Labrador Retrievers to determine standing TPA. Lateral radiography of the stifle joint was performed on all dogs to determine traditional TPA. Age and body weight were recorded for unaffected and affected Labrador Retrievers. RESULTS: Greyhounds had mean standing TPA of 1.56 degrees and mean traditional TPA of 22.50 degrees. Unaffected Labrador Retrievers had mean standing TPA of 3.52 degrees and traditional TPA of 27.97 degrees. Affected Labrador Retrievers had mean traditional TPA of 25.55 degrees. No significant difference was found in mean standing TPA between Greyhounds and unaffected Labrador Retrievers. Standing TPAs in Greyhounds and unaffected Labrador Retrievers were not significantly different from a plane drawn parallel to the ground. Significant differences in traditional TPAs were detected among all 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Greyhounds had mean traditional TPA of 22.50 degrees; similar angles should be considered normal for dogs. Although affected Labrador Retrievers had mean traditional TPA that was significantly greater than that of Greyhounds, the steepest TPA was found in unaffected Labrador Retrievers. Because Greyhounds and unaffected Labrador Retrievers had similar standing TPAs, we conclude that although TPA may be associated with damage to the cruciate ligaments, many dogs with a steep TPA do not develop cruciate ligament disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".