Radiographic evaluation of the width of the femorotibial joint space in horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the minimal joint space width (mJSW) in caudocranial radiographic views of orthopedically normal femorotibial joints of horses, to compare the accuracy of measurements with those of a software program designed for humans, and to identify the ideal caudocranial radiographic projection angle for mJSW measurement. ANIMALS 12 healthy mares (22 femorotibial joints) and 3 equine cadavers (6 stifle joints). PROCEDURES: Caudocranial views of femorotibial joints were acquired in the proximodistal plane at 5°, 10°, and 15° (caudo-5°-proximal-craniodistal oblique, 10°, and 15°) and lateromedial plane (caudo-10°-proximo-5°-lateral-craniodistomedial oblique and caudo-10°-proximo-5°-medial-craniodistolateral oblique). The mJSWs of medial and lateral femorotibial joint compartments were measured manually by 2 evaluators and automatically by a digital analysis software program. Interevaluator reproducibility was assessed. Post hoc tests were used to identify the projection angle that provided the largest measurements. Validation of mJSW measurements was performed by evaluation of 6 stifle joints ex vivo. RESULTS: Excellent agreement was achieved between the 2 evaluators and between the veterinary radiologist and the analysis software for the medial and lateral compartments of femorotibial joints. Angle of caudocranial view in the proximodistal but not lateromedial plane had a significant effect on the medial compartment mJSW measurements. Mean mJSW for the medial compartment was significantly higher for the caudoproximal-craniodistal oblique projection made at 10° from the horizontal than for other angles. Angle had no significant effect on mean mJSW for the lateral compartment. Agreement between automated measurements of mJSW in the medial compartment and thickness of nonmineralized cartilage in histologic preparations of associated tissues was excellent. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Measurements of mJSW in the medial compartment of femorotibial joints, the most common site of osteoarthritis in horses, were reproducible and optimal with a caudoproximal-craniodistal oblique radiographic projection made at 10° from the horizontal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".