Comparison of Three Drilling Techniques for Carpometacarpal Joint Arthrodesis in Horses
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 3 drilling techniques for arthrodesis of the equine carpometacarpal (CMC) joint. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Cadaveric equine forelimbs (n=15). METHODS: Limbs were divided into 3 groups (5 limbs each) to evaluate 3 drilling techniques: (1) use of a 4.5 mm drill bit inserted into the joint through 4 entry points and moved in a fanning motion; (2) a 5.5 mm drill bit inserted through 2 entry points to create 3 nonfanned drill tracts (3 drill technique); and (3) a 4.5 mm drill bit used in a 3 drill technique. The CMC joint was disarticulated after drilling, and cartilage and subchondral bone damage evaluated visually and by gross and microradiographic examination using planimetry. RESULTS: Technique 1 produced significantly more damage of the proximal surface, but significantly less to the subchondral bone of the distal surface. Technique 1 produced the most damage to both the articular cartilage and subchondral bone of the total CMC joint than either of the 3 drill tract techniques; however, the difference between techniques 1 and 2 was not significant. Damage from technique 3 was significantly less than that with techniques 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: Techniques 1 and 2 produced the most cartilage and subchondral bone damage with technique 2 changes more equally distributed between proximal and distal joint surfaces. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Technique 1 (fanning) and 2 (5.5 mm 3 drill tracts) may be preferable to achieve arthrodesis of the CMC joint. Morbidity and efficacy of these arthrodesis techniques need to be evaluated in vivo.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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