Three-Dimensional Kinematic Motion of the Craniocervical Junction of Chihuahuas and Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All vertebrate species have a distinct morphology and movement pattern, which reflect the adaption of the animal to its habitat. Yet, our knowledge of motion patterns of the craniocervical junction of dogs is very limited. The aim of this prospective study is to perform a detailed analysis and description of three-dimensional craniocervical motion during locomotion in clinically sound Chihuahuas and Labrador retrievers. This study presents the first in vivo recorded motions of the craniocervical junction of clinically sound Chihuahuas ( n = 8) and clinically sound Labrador retrievers ( n = 3) using biplanar fluoroscopy. Scientific rotoscoping was used to reconstruct three-dimensional kinematics during locomotion. The same basic motion patterns were found in Chihuahuas and Labrador retrievers during walking. Sagittal, lateral, and axial rotation could be observed in both the atlantoaxial and the atlantooccipital joints during head motion and locomotion. Lateral and axial rotation occurred as a coupled motion pattern. The amplitudes of axial and lateral rotation of the total upper cervical motion and the atlantoaxial joint were higher in Labrador retrievers than in Chihuahuas. The range of motion (ROM) maxima were 20°, 26°, and 24° in the sagittal, lateral, and axial planes, respectively, of the atlantoaxial joint. ROM maxima of 30°, 16°, and 18° in the sagittal, lateral, and axial planes, respectively, were found at the atlantooccipital joint. The average absolute sagittal rotation of the atlas was slightly higher in Chihuahuas (between 9.1 ± 6.8° and 18.7 ± 9.9°) as compared with that of Labrador retrievers (between 5.7 ± 4.6° and 14.5 ± 2.6°), which corresponds to the more acute angle of the atlas in Chihuahuas. Individual differences for example, varying in amplitude or time of occurrence are reported.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".