Bone density of the humeral condyle in Labrador retrievers with medial coronoid process disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate, using CT imaging, differences in the regional bone density of the humeral condyle in Labrador retriever elbows with and without medial coronoid process disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The elbows of Labrador Retrievers that had undergone CT were reviewed. Scans were divided into three categories: elbows without medial coronoid process disease; elbows with medial coronoid process disease involving fragmentation of the radial incisure; elbows with medial coronoid process disease involving fragmentation of the medial coronoid apex. A templating technique was employed to define the weight-bearing regions of the medial and lateral portion of the humeral condyle and estimates of volumetric bone density (defined by Hounsfield unit measurement) were compared across the three groups. RESULTS: CT evaluation was performed on 122 elbows in 81 dogs. There was a higher mean Hounsfield unit measurement in the medial and lateral portions of the humeral condyles in elbows with medial coronoid process disease involving fragmentation of the medial coronoid apex compared with elbows with medial coronoid process disease involving fragmentation of the radial incisure. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dogs with apical fragmentation of the medial coronoid process exhibited significantly higher estimated bone mineral density within the medial portion of the humeral condyle when compared to dogs with radial incisure fragmentation. The medial portion of the humeral condyle may be associated with the pathogenesis of apical but not radial incisure medial coronoid process fragmentation in Labrador Retrievers.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".