MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765113356 · doi:10.1186/s40634-017-0109-1

Determination of knee cartilage volume and surface area in beagle dogs: a pilot study

2017· article· en· W2765113356 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Aad Dhollander, Amanda Malone, James J. Price, Alan Getgood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsAurinia (Canada)Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine ClinicWestern University
FundersEupraxia Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsBeagleCartilageKnee cartilageOsteoarthritisMedicineAnatomyVolume (thermodynamics)Labrador RetrieverPathologyArticular cartilageInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to determine the cartilage volume and surface area of male and female Beagle dog knees using 3D (3 dimensional) reconstructed MRI images. Methods Six Beagle Dogs (Canis familiaris) (3 males and 3 females) of 10‐18 months old and weighing between 7.2 and 17.1 kg underwent a MRI evaluation of both knees. The data acquired allowed a 3D reconstruction of the knee and measurement of the cartilage volume and surface area. Results Mean knee cartilage volume (averaged over the right and left knees) of animals between 7.2 and 17.1 kg ranged from 319.7 to 647.3 mm3; while the mean knee cartilage surface area ranged from 427.14 to 757.2 mm2. There was evidence of both knee volume and surface area increasing linearly with animal bodyweight. Conclusions The cartilage volume and surface area of the Beagle dog appears to correlate significantly with body weight. This study provides a reference base for future studies investigating cartilage related pathology such as osteoarthritis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental OrthopaedicsSame topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207