Three-dimensional assessment of the influence of juvenile pubic symphysiodesis on the pelvic geometry of dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the 3-D geometry of canine pelves and to characterize the long-term effects of juvenile pubic symphysiodesis (JPS) on pelvic geometry by comparing the pelvic configuration between littermates that did and did not undergo the procedure. ANIMALS 24 Labrador Retriever, Golden Retriever, or Labrador Retriever-Golden Retriever crossbred service dogs from 13 litters. PROCEDURES At 16 weeks old, puppies with a hip joint distraction index ≥ 0.5 were randomly assigned to undergo thermal JPS (n = 9), mechanical JPS (7), or a sham (control) surgical procedure (8). Ten years later, each dog underwent a CT scan of the pelvic region. Modeling software was used to create 3-D reconstructions from the CT scans, and various pelvic measurements were made and compared among the 3 treatments. RESULTS Compared with the control treatment, thermal and mechanical JPS increased the hemipelvis acetabular angle by 4°, the acetabular angle of lateral opening by 5°, and the orientation of the medial acetabular wall in a transverse plane by 6°, which indicated that JPS increased dorsal femoral head coverage by the acetabulum. Both JPS procedures decreased the pelvic canal area by approximately 20% and acetabular inclination by 6° but did not alter acetabular retroversion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that thermal and mechanical JPS were equally effective in altering the 3-D pelvic geometry of dogs. These findings may help guide future studies of alternatives for optimizing canine pelvic anatomy to minimize the risk of hip dysplasia and associated 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".