Canal flare index evaluation for different dog breeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This study determined the canal flare index (CFI) of four dog breeds using two distinct femoral regions as a reference. Thirty-five radiographs of the hip joints of Golden Retrievers (GRG), German Shepherds (GSG), Labrador Retrievers (LRG), and Rottweilers (RG) of both sexes were used. Seventy experimental units were submitted to CFI calculation. Objective (CFIob) and subjective (CFIsub) values of the CFI of each experimental unit were determined according to the anatomical reference used for the calculation. A significant difference in the CFIob between the Golden Retriever and German Shepherd breeds (1.68 ± 0.16 and 1.49 ± 0.08), and in the CFIsub between Golden Retriever, German Shepherd, and Rottweiler breeds (2.09 ± 0.31, 1.86 ± 0.11, and 1.84 ± 0.18) was reported. The subjective form of measurement showed higher values than the objective form (GRG: 2.09 ± 0.31; GSG: 1.86 ± 0.11; LRG: 2.07 ± 0.12; RG: 1.84 ± 0.18). The CFI values of each breed were similar, suggesting a certain racial pattern. A significant difference in the interobserver assessment for both CFIsub and CFIob, in all races was observed. The CFI analysis identified morphological patterns of the proximal femur in the different races. Results indicated the need for standardization of the anatomical references used to calculate the CFI because there were statistical differences among the measurements among the observers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".