The Effect of Sliding Humeral Osteotomy (SHO) on Frontal Plane Thoracic Limb Alignment: An Ex Vivo Canine Cadaveric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of sliding humeral osteotomy (SHO) on frontal plane thoracic limb alignment in standing and recumbent limb positions. STUDY DESIGN: Canine cadaveric study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Canine thoracic limbs (n=15 limb pairs). METHODS: Limbs acquired from healthy Labrador Retrievers euthanatized for reasons unrelated to this study were mounted in a limb press and aligned in a standing position followed by axial loading at 30% body weight. Frontal plane radiography was performed in standing and recumbent positions pre- and post-SHO. In the standing position, lateralization of the foot was measured pre- and post-SHO using a textured grid secured to the limb press base plate. Twelve thoracic limb alignment values (mean ± SD and 95% CI) were determined using the center of rotation of angulation (CORA) method were compared using linear mixed models to determine if significant differences existed between limb alignment values pre- or post-SHO, controlling for dog, limb, and limb position. RESULTS: Six of 12 standing or recumbent alignment values were significantly different pre- and post-SHO. SHO resulted in decreased mechanical lateral distal humeral angle and movement of the mechanical humeral radio-ulnar angle, radio-ulnar metacarpal angle, thoracic humeral angle, and elbow mechanical axis deviation toward coaxial limb alignment. In the standing position, the foot underwent significant lateralization post-SHO. CONCLUSION: SHO resulted in significant alteration in frontal plane thoracic limb alignment. Additional studies are necessary to determine if the changes reported using our ex vivo model occur following SHO in vivo.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".