Risk Factors and Prognosis for Humeral Fractures in Birds of Prey: A Retrospective Study of 461 Cases from 2000 to 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this retrospective study were 1) to characterize humeral fractures in raptors at a rehabilitation program, 2) to determine risk factors for closed and compound humeral fractures in the raptors, and 3) to investigate prognostic factors for humeral fractures in raptors. Of the 6017 birds of prey admitted over 15 years to the Université de Montréal raptor rehabilitation program, 461 birds presented with a humeral fracture. The highest occurrences of humeral fractures were documented in short-eared owls (33%; Asio flammeus), Northern hawk-owls (24%; Surnia ulula), long-eared owls (20%; Asio otus), and Northern harriers (19%; Circus hudsonius). Humeral fractures were more common in males, and species from the intermediate weight group (300 g to 1 kg) were more likely to have compound humeral fractures than birds from the lower and higher weight groups. Humeral fractures of the middle and distal third of the bone were diagnosed as compound more often than fractures of the proximal third. A correlation between the occurrences of humeral fractures and the relative average width of the humerus for each species was observed and suggests that species with slender humeri have an increased likelihood of compound humeral fractures. Following the triage criteria used at this rehabilitation program, surgical (119 birds) or nonsurgical (77 birds) treatments were attempted. Release rate for birds without concomitant conditions in which a treatment was attempted was 39.3% (59/150) and did not significantly differ between closed and compound fractures, which suggests that the triage criteria used for compound fractures in this program were adequate. Our findings emphasize that raptors should not be systematically euthanatized when presented with compound humeral fractures to a rehabilitation facility.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".