Comparison of limited-contact dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate constructs for proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis in the horse.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared in vitro monotonic and cyclic mechanical properties of equine proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodeses stabilized using an open or closed technique combined with axial 4.5 mm narrow limited-contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) or 4.5 mm narrow locking compression plate (LCP). Ten forelimb pairs were randomly assigned to LCP or LC-DCP groups. One limb in each pair was assigned to either open or closed technique. Limbs were tested for cyclic fatigue at 20 000 cycles and then single-cycle to failure under 3-point dorsopalmar bending. There was no significant difference in stiffness of constructs during cyclic fatigue testing or on force or stiffness at failure in single cycle to failure testing between open and closed techniques or between plate types. Both implants, surgical technique, or combinations thereof are suitable for clinical use. More work is necessary to define the interaction between implant type and surgical technique.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".