Prevalence of Spondylosis Deformans in Tailed Versus Tail-Docked Rottweilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Tail docking is a routine procedure for rottweilers in the United States and Canada. A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted in tailed (n = 25) and docked (n = 39) rottweilers ≥5 yr old to compare prevalence and severity of spondylosis deformans in the lumbar spine between groups. The prevalence of spondylosis was 68.0% in tailed dogs and 76.9% in docked dogs, which was not significantly different ( P = .563). Distribution of spondylosis severity did not significantly differ between tailed and docked dogs ( P = .102). Logistic regression found moderate to severe spondylosis was associated with age and sex. Females were three times at greater risk than males (odds ratio 3.10, 95% confidence interval 1.060–9.08; P = .039). Risk increased 1.4 times for each additional year (odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.99, P = .036). Tail docking may not impact or only play a minor role in spondylosis deformans in rottweilers.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".