Comparing Hip Dysplasia in Dogs and Humans: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hip dysplasia (HD) is common in both humans and dogs. This interconnection is because humans and dogs descended from a common ancestor and therefore have a similar anatomy at micro- and macroscopic levels. Furthermore, dogs are the animals of choice for testing new treatments for human hip dysplasia and orthopedic surgery in general. However, little literature exists comparing HD between the two species. Therefore, the aim of this review is to describe the anatomy, etiology, pathogenesis, diagnostics, and treatment of HD in humans and dogs. HD as an orthopedic condition has many common characteristics in terms of etiology and pathogenesis and most of the differences can be explained by the evolutionary differences between dogs and humans. Likewise, the treatment of HD shows many commonalities between humans and dogs. Conservative treatment and surgical interventions such as femoral osteotomy, pelvic osteotomy and total hip arthroplasty are very similar between humans and dogs. Therefore, future integration of knowledge and experiences for HD between dogs and humans could be beneficial for both species.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".