CT evaluation of elbow congruity in dogs: radial incisure <i>versus</i> apical medial coronoid process fragmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare elbow congruity in two cohorts of Labrador retrievers affected with either radial incisure or apex fragmentation of the medial coronoid process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dogs were included if they had elbow lameness and a CT diagnosis of a fissure or fragmentation of the medial coronoid process occurring either along the radial incisure or at the coronoid apex. Radioulnar joint space was measured incrementally from the lateral to the medial coronoid process on transverse slice images. Axial radioulnar congruency was also measured at the apex and mid-coronoid in the dorsal plane and at the base of the coronoid in the sagittal plane. RESULTS: We studied 99 elbows (in 66 dogs) of which 56 had a fissure or fragmentation along the radial incisure and 43 had an apical fragment. No difference was found between the two groups at the different measuring points - with the exception of a transverse plane radioulnar joint space measurement in the radial incisure group that was smaller adjacent to the lateral coronoid process. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Abnormal ulnar morphology in the radial incisure group could result in a fulcrum effect within the radioulnar joint, overloading the radial incisure and predisposing to osteochondral damage at this site.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".