Isolated Avulsion of the Tendon of Insertion of the Infraspinatus and Supraspinatus Muscles in Five Juvenile Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CASE HISTORY: Five juvenile Labrador Retrievers between the ages of 6 and 8 months were presented to our referral centres with a history of intermittent forelimb lameness. CLINICAL EXAMINATION: The clinical examination revealed the presence of bilateral orthopaedic problems in four out of five cases. DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING FINDINGS: Radiographic and computed tomography examinations showed the presence of a radiolucent defect corresponding to the area of insertion of the infraspinatus or supraspinatus tendons on the proximal humerus. Three dogs were concurrently affected by elbow disease on the contralateral forelimb and one dog with bilateral infraspinatus avulsion also had osteochondritis dissecans affecting both shoulder joints. DIAGNOSIS: Avulsion of the insertion of the infraspinatus tendon in four dogs and of the supraspinatus tendon in one dog. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: According to the current literature, the incidence of infraspinatus and supraspinatus tendinopathies in adult Labrador Retrievers is higher than in other breeds. In our five cases, the patients were juvenile and the nature of the injury was an avulsion of the tendinous insertion. Avulsion of the tendon of insertion of the infraspinatus or supraspinatus has been poorly described in the veterinary literature, and this would represent the first series of cases affecting juvenile Labrador Retrievers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".