Cervical Intervertebral Disk to Vertebral Body Ratios of Different Dog Breeds Based on Sagittal Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To establish sagittal area and length reference values and ratios between apparently normal canine cervical vertebrae and intervertebral disks using magnetic resonance imaging. Sample: Retrospective evaluation of cervical vertebral column magnetic resonance imaging studies of 44 dogs representing 5 different breeds (Labrador Retriever, n=10; French Bulldog, n=10; Great Dane, n=9; Chihuahua, n=10; Dachshund, n=5). Procedures: Mid-sagittal measurements of vertebral body and disk areas were obtained from C3 through C7 vertebrae and C2/C3 through C6/C7 intervertebral disks. Disk to vertebra area ratios were calculated and compared among dog breeds. Additionally, sagittal vertebral body and disk length measurements were obtained and disk to vertebra length ratios calculated. Inter and intra observer variability was assessed. Results: There were significant differences for disk to vertebral body area and length ratios between evaluated dog breeds and cervical vertebral locations (p < 0.001). Mean area ratio of Chihuahuas was significantly larger than all other breeds, while results from Dachshunds were only significantly different than Chihuahuas and Labrador Retrievers. Mean area ratios were statistically different between the cranial and caudal cervical vertebral locations. Regarding length ratios, results from Chihuahuas were significantly different than all breeds except Dachshunds. Mean length ratios were statistically different between all cervical locations, except C2/C3 compared to C3/C4. Intra- and interobserver variability was very good to excellent. Conclusion and Clinical Relevance: There are significant differences in area and length ratios between dog breeds. Differences also exist in area and length ratios between the cranial and caudal cervical vertebral column. These differences may play a role in the development of vertebral column diseases including intervertebral disk disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".