Computed tomographic morphometry of tympanic bulla shape and position in brachycephalic and mesaticephalic dog breeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anatomic variations in skull morphology have been previously described for brachycephalic dogs; however there is little published information on interbreed variations in tympanic bulla morphology. This retrospective observational study aimed to (1) provide detailed descriptions of the computed tomographic (CT) morphology of tympanic bullae in a sample of dogs representing four brachycephalic breeds (Pugs, French Bulldogs, English Bulldog, and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels) versus two mesaticephalic breeds (Labrador retrievers and Jack Russell Terriers); and (2) test associations between tympanic bulla morphology and presence of middle ear effusion. Archived head CT scans for the above dog breeds were retrieved and a single observer measured tympanic bulla shape (width:height ratio), wall thickness, position relative to the temporomandibular joint, and relative volume (volume:body weight ratio). A total of 127 dogs were sampled. Cavalier King Charles Spaniels had significantly flatter tympanic bullae (greater width:height ratios) versus Pugs, English Bulldogs, Labrador retrievers, and Jack Russell terriers. French Bulldogs and Pugs had significantly more overlap between tympanic bullae and temporomandibular joints versus other breeds. All brachycephalic breeds had significantly lower tympanic bulla volume:weight ratios versus Labrador retrievers. Soft tissue attenuating material (middle ear effusion) was present in the middle ear of 48/100 (48%) of brachycephalic breeds, but no significant association was found between tympanic bulla CT measurements and presence of this material. Findings indicated that there are significant interbreed variations in tympanic bulla morphology, however no significant relationship between tympanic bulla morphology and presence of middle ear effusion could be identified.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".