MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288883734 · doi:10.1177/089875640802500106

Locked Jaw Syndrome in Dogs and Cats: 37 Cases (1998–2005)

2008· article· en· W2288883734 on OpenAlexaff
Matthieu Gatineau, Alexander O. El‐Warrak, Sandra Manfra Marretta, D Kamiya, Maxime Moreau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Dentistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTemporomandibular jointAnkylosisMasticatory forceMyositismuscle spasmSurgeryDentistryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A consecutive series of cases of dogs and cats with locked jaw syndrome (inability to open or close the mouth) are reported in this study. Dogs were significantly overrepresented (84.0%) and adult dogs were more frequently affected (81.0%). Temporomandibular joint ankylosis due to fracture was the most common cause (54.0%) of locked jaw syndrome. Additional potential causes of locked jaw syndrome are masticatory muscle myositis, neoplasia, trigeminal nerve paralysis and central neurological lesions, temporomandibular joint luxation and dysplasia, osteoarthritis, retrobulbar abscess, tetanus, and severe ear disease. Treatment of locked jaw is directed towards the primary cause. It is important to treat the tonic spasm in order to minimize periarticular fibrosis. Surgical intervention is recommended for temporomandibular joint ankylosis. Masticatory muscle myositis treatment is initiated by gradually opening the mouth, with medical treatment based on immunosuppressive therapy. Fracture and masticatory muscle myositis are associated with a relatively good prognosis in regard to short-term outcome as compared to animals with central neurologic lesions or osteosarcoma which have a poor prognosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary DentistrySame topicTemporomandibular Joint DisordersFrench-language works237,207