Kinematic Analysis During Straight Line Free Swimming in Horses: Part 2 - Hindlimbs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Swimming is used for rehabilitation and conditioning purposes in equine sports medicine. We described the swimming kinematics of the equine forelimbs in Part 1. The aim of Part 2 is to assess stifle, tarsus, and hind fetlock joints kinematics in swimming horses. The objectives were 1- to calculate and compare joint angles during swimming against passive mobilizations (PM), 2- to determine joints angular velocities during a swimming stride cycle. METHODS: Eleven elite endurance horses were used to swim in a 100-meter straight pool. Underwater (swimming) and overground PM videos were recorded from the horses' left side. Joint markers were applied on the lateral hoof wall, lateral metatarsal epicondyle, lateral aspect of the talus, lateral femoral epicondyle, and great trochanter of the femur. As a reference, maximal fetlock, tarsus, and stifle flexion/extension angles were determined during PM overground. Differences between angle extrema, angular velocities, and range of motion (ROM) were statistically compared. RESULTS: The tarsus ROM was similar during PM and swimming. The stifle and fetlock ROM were greater during PM, although the stifle flexion was greater during swimming. The stifle and tarsus had the greatest hindlimb angular velocity during the swimming cycle. Greater angular velocities were observed during the retraction phase for all the hindlimb joints. CONCLUSION: A short retraction phase with great angular velocity for the joints of interest characterized the swimming pattern observed. Swimming may be beneficial in horses when an increased ROM of the tarsus and stifle or a reduced fetlock extension is indicated for rehabilitation purposes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".