Effectiveness of PennHIP and Orthopedic Foundation for Animals measurements of hip joint quality for breeding selection to reduce hip dysplasia in a population of purpose-bred detection dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of applying selective pressure to improve hip joint quality in purpose-bred detection dogs by use of PennHIP distraction index (DI) values along with Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) hip joint scores and to determine whether age, sex, coat color, breed, and body weight were associated with hip joint quality. ANIMALS: 615 purpose-bred detection dogs assessed for hip joint quality. PROCEDURES: Orthopedic records of 615 purpose-bred detection dogs (569 Labrador Retrievers and 46 Labrador Retriever-German Wirehaired Pointer crossbred dogs) from 2000 through 2017 were analyzed. From 2000 to 2014, hip joint quality scores were determined by OFA evaluation only (429 dogs). Beginning in 2015, both PennHIP and OFA evaluations were used to select male and female breeding stock (179 dogs; 7 dogs were removed from analysis because they did not undergo both evaluations). Selection threshold DI value for sires and dams was ≤ 0.30; all had hip joint scores of excellent or good by OFA standards. Standard ventrodorsal hip joint-extended and stress (compression and distraction) pelvic radiographs were submitted for OFA and PennHIP evaluations. RESULTS: Hip joint quality scores were unchanged by use of OFA measurements only. When both PennHIP and OFA measurements were used for the selection of breeding stock, hip joint quality scores improved significantly. Sex and age were significant predictors of DI values. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PennHIP DI values were an effective measurement of hip joint quality for selecting breeding stock, and the addition of DI values to OFA measurements significantly improved hip joint quality in a population of purpose-bred dogs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".