Diagnostic tenoscopy of the carpal sheath with a needle arthroscope in standing sedated horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of a needle arthroscope for diagnostic tenoscopy of the carpal sheath in standing horses. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Six forelimbs for the cadaveric part of the study and six horses for the in vivo part of the study. METHODS: Six cadaveric limbs were used to perform carpal sheath tenoscopy with a 1.2-mm-diameter needle arthroscope (65 and 100 mm long), followed by tenoscopy with a 4-mm arthroscope through a standard proximolateral approach. Then, unilateral standing carpal sheath tenoscopy was performed in six healthy sedated horses with a 65-mm-long needle arthroscope. Limbs were maintained in flexion during the procedure by using a custom-made splint and base. Degree of tenoscopic evaluation, safety, horse tolerance, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Visibility at the most distal aspect of the sheath was absent for the needle arthroscopes vs a standard arthroscope. The maneuverability with a 65-mm needle arthroscope was excellent and allowed exhaustive visualization of the proximal region of the carpal sheath in cadaveric limbs and standing horses (six of six). However, visualization of the intertendinous recess was partial in most horses (four of six) vs cadavers (complete in six of six) because of remaining flexor tendon tension in standing horses. No major complications were encountered. CONCLUSION: Standing carpal sheath tenoscopy allowed a safe and thorough evaluation of most structures in the proximal region of the sheath and offers an alternative diagnostic technique. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Horses with unrewarding results after traditional imaging or that require an accurate diagnosis before treatment may benefit from this alternative procedure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".