Clinical characterisation of polydactyly in Maine Coon cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Polydactyly has been reported in a number of vertebrate species, including the domestic cat. It is a common characteristic in some breeding lines of the Maine Coon. The aim of this study was to assess the limb phenotype of polydactyl cats using physical and radiographic examinations. Methods We used physical examination and radiography to characterise the polydactyly phenotype in a cohort of 70 Maine Coon cats, including 48 polydactyl cats from four different breeding lines from Europe, Canada and the USA. Results The phenotypic expression of polydactyly showed great variability, not only in digit number and conformation, but also in the structure of the carpus and tarsus. Comparison of the size of the radius in polydactyl and non-polydactyl 3-month-old kittens and adult females did not reveal any difference between polydactyl and non-polydactyl cats. Conclusions and relevance We conclude that polydactyly in Maine Coon cats is characterised by broad phenotypic diversity. Polydactyly not only affects digit number and conformation, but also carpus and tarsus conformation, with no apparent deleterious consequence on feline welfare.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".