Vertical force distribution in the paws of sound Labrador retrievers during walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to gait analysis in humans, where pedobarography is an integral part of biomechanical studies, veterinary researchers have rarely investigated vertical force distribution (VFD) in the paws of dogs. The aim of this study was to investigate the VFD of peak of vertical force (PFz), vertical impulse (IFz) and time of occurrence of PFz during stance phase (TPFz) in 20 sound, adult Labrador retrievers walking normally on a pressure plate. A technique was used that divided the canine paw prints into quadrants. A general linear model was introduced to investigate the effects of forelimbs/hindlimbs, body side, and medial/lateral and cranial/caudal quadrants on VFD as they related to the total force (sum of all PFz/IFz values). For PFz and IFz, there were significantly greater effects on VFD in the lateral quadrants compared to the medial quadrants, respectively (6.49 ± 2.56% vs. 6.01 ± 2.60% and 6.62 ± 3.06% vs. 5.88 ± 3.21%; P < 0.001), in the forelimbs compared to the hindlimbs (8.02 ± 2.13% vs. 4.48 ± 1.61% and 8.02 ± 2.83% vs. 4.48 ± 2.36%; P < 0.001), and in the cranial quadrants compared to the caudal quadrants (7.87 ± 2.09% vs. 4.63 ± 1.93% and 8.57 ± 2.17% vs. 3.88 ± 1.98%; P < 0.001). The cranial/caudal ratio was higher in the hindlimbs than in the forelimbs (PFz: 2.10 ± 0.45 vs. 1.65 ± 0.32; P = 0.001; and IFz: 3.35 ± 0.80 vs. 2.04 ± 0.46; P < 0.001). The TPFz was reached earlier in the hindlimbs than in the forelimbs (46.86 ± 19.16% vs. 54.08 ± 19.62%; P < 0.001) and in the caudal quadrant than in the cranial quadrant (32.57 ± 5.77% vs. 68.37 ± 10.01%; P < 0.001). These data from sound Labrador retrievers could be used as a basis for future research investigating orthopedically- and/or neurologically-impaired animals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".