Comparison of the proximal tibial angles between Labrador Retrievers and other dog breeds with and without cranial cruciate ligament rupture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTThe influence of the proximal tibia conformation in the rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) in dogs is still controversial, especially in Labrador Retrievers. The aim of this study was to compare the angles of the proximal tibia between Labrador Retrievers and other large breeds of dogs, both groups with and without CCL rupture. Radiographic images of 64 stifle joints were obtained and divided into four groups of 16 images. Group 1 consisted of Labrador dogs without orthopedic disorders, group 2 consisted of Labrador dogs with CCL rupture, group 3 consisted of dogs of various large breeds without orthopedic disorders, and group 4 consisted of dogs of various large breeds with CCL rupture. The radiographs were performed in mediolateral projection with the stifle joint positioned at an approximate angle of 135°. The tibial plateau angle showed an overall average of 22.17°±4.20°, and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. The patellar ligament angle in relation to the tibial plateau had a mean of 103°±4.20°, and there was a significant difference between groups 1 and 4. The patellar ligament angle in relation to the common tangent at the tibiofemoral contact point showed an average of 99.06°±6.08°, and there was no difference between the groups. The patellar ligament insertion angle had an overall average of 51.45°±5.06°, and there was a significant difference between the two groups of normal dogs and two groups of ruptured dogs. In conclusion, the tibial plateau angle, the patellar ligament angles and the patellar ligament insertion angle do not seem to be predisposing factors for rupture of the CCL in Labrador Retriever dogs. In general, there seems to be no relationship between the angles of the proximal tibia and the CCL rupture in dogs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".