MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766707495

COMPARISON OF PLAIN RADIOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY FOR DETECTION OF ELBOW DYSPLASIA IN LABRADOR RETRIEVER

2017· dissertation· en· W2766707495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eleonora Daga

Bibliographic record

VenueDSpaceUnipr (University of Parma) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabrador RetrieverPlain radiographyComputed tomographyElbowRadiographyMedicineRadiologySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To our knowledge there has been no comprehensive direct comparison between the plain radiology and computed tomography (CT) for diagnosis of elbow dysplasia through the use of a grading score. \nThe first aim of the study was to clinically apply a comparative grid (proposed at the last IEWG meeting in 2016) to grade elbow dysplasia on CT similarly as is done on traditional radiology.\nThe second objective was to evaluate the concordance of the grading between the two imaging modalities at the age less than 12 months and over 12 months and to emphasise the differences observed between puppies and adult dogs.\nThirty-nine (39) Labrador Retriever (78 elbow joints) were included in the study, the dogs were own client dogs, asymptomatic, no one showed any sign of lameness nor other clinical problems. \nAt the age <12 months the agreement between plain radiology grading and CT grading was fair (K 0.33), the sensitivity of radiography to identify elbow dysplasia was 75% and specificity 100% (P<0.001). At the age >12months the agreement was fair too with K 0.23 and the sensitivity was 70% and specificity 98% (P<0.001).\nA development of the disease has been noted between the evaluations at different ages. On plain radiography the grade of disease worsened in 24 elbow joint and improved in 2 (P 0.001). On CT the grade of the disease remained invariable in 54 joints and showed a worse grade in 19 joints and improved in 5 joints (P 0.004).\nFurther studies including also other breeds might provide more information about the accurate use of a score grading on CT. The presence of false-negatives in our group of dogs and the fair agreement between the two modalities open a discussion about the exclusive use of radiographs in the screening program. As well a screening program to treat dogs at too young an age should be reassessed having regard to the disease progression, which, however is not related to any clinical symptoms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDSpaceUnipr (University of Parma)Same topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207