Changes in Ground Reaction Forces and Center of Pressure Parameters of Paws When Wearing Dog Boots in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dog boots are commonly used as protective footwear against snow, ice, hot sand, road salt, and paw injury. Only a few studies exist in veterinary medicine that capture the impact of dog boot replacements, such as bandages, on ground reaction forces (GRF) in dogs. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated the effect of dog boots on the center of pressure (COP) in dogs. This study investigated changes in the GRF of the whole limb and selected COP parameters of the paws while wearing dog boots in five Labrador Retrievers. After habituation, data were collected by walking and trotting dogs over a pressure platform without boots (control measurement) and under five different test conditions (wearing boots on all limbs, boots on both front limbs, boots on both hind limbs, one boot on the left front limb, and one boot on the right hind limb). The most prominent change was detectable when one boot was worn on the left front limb, with a decrease of peak vertical force (PFz%) in the left front limb at trot which led to a significant difference between both front limbs and a significant increase of PFz (%) in the right hind limb. Additionally, in both tempi, the vertical impulse (IFz%) showed significant differences between the front limbs; in trot, there was also an increase in the right front limb compared with the control. Furthermore, some significant changes in COP parameters were detected; for instance, all test conditions showed a significant increase in COP area (%) at the right front limb during walking compared to the control. Therefore, our results show that wearing the tested dog boots in different constellations seems to have an impact on GRF and some COP parameters.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".