Needle arthroscopy of the radiocarpal and middle carpal joints in standing sedated horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a technique for standing diagnostic needle arthroscopy of the radiocarpal and middle carpal joints in standing sedated horses. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. ANIMALS: Six cadaveric forelimbs (phase 1) and six healthy horses (phase 2). METHODS: In phase 1, six cadaveric forelimbs were used to assess needle arthroscopic evaluation of both joints. Six healthy horses were subsequently enrolled in phase 2 to validate the procedure in live animals. The joint was maintained in flexion with a custom-made splint and base. RESULTS: In phase 1, needle arthroscopy allowed thorough evaluation of the dorsal and palmar recesses of both joints with traditional arthroscopic portals. In phase 2, joint evaluation was also thorough but only dorsal approaches were performed. All horses underwent radiocarpal joint arthroscopy, whereas the middle carpal joint was evaluated in only three of six horses because of limb movement. The technique was quickly performed and well tolerated by all horses. Complications included moderate movement, mild iatrogenic cartilage damage, and mild hemarthrosis. CONCLUSION: Standing needle arthroscopy allowed thorough evaluation of the dorsal aspect of both joints, although only three of six middle carpal joints were assessed because of movement limitations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed technique offers an alternative diagnostic tool for radiographically silent intra-articular lesions of the carpus while initially avoiding the cost and risks associated with general anesthesia. Arthroscopy of a single joint is recommended to minimize risks associated with movement during the 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".