Occipital condyle defects assessed by radiography or CT can be a normal finding in foals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age of complete ossification of equine occipital condyles has not been published. Consequently, clinical significance of occipital condyle defects on radiographs or CT scans of young horses remains unknown. The goals of this single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study were to characterize incidental occipital condyle defects and to define the age of complete ossification. The margin of occipital condyles was classified as regular or with defect(s). Analyses were made on 121 horses, including 106 radiographic and 19 CT studies showing the occipital condyles of horses less than 5 years of age obtained over 6 years in a referral hospital. Neurological signs and outcome were not associated with occipital defects. Horses with regular occipital condyles on radiographs had a median age of 974 days (median interquartile range = 707) compared with 47 days (interquartile range = 106) in the defect group. The odds of finding radiographically regular occipital condyles were 2.6% higher for each additional day of age (P = .011, 95% CI, 0.6-4.7%). In the CT group, univariate analyses demonstrated a significant effect of age on the aspect of occipital condyles (P = .016). Horses with regular occipital condyles were older (median age = 881 days; interquartile range = 1054) than horses with a defect (median age = 109 days, interquartile range = 318). All horses above 156 days (5.1 months) of age and 550 days (18.1 months) of age had regular occipital condyles on radiographic and CT images, respectively. This study describes occipital condyle defects as a potential normal finding in young horses and provides guidelines for interpretation of the occipital condyle ossification process.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".