MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297845834 · doi:10.1160/vcot-06-10-0074

Patellar luxation as a complication of surgical intervention for the management of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs

2007· article· en· W4297845834 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sorrel Langley‐Hobbs, Gareth Arthurs

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCruciate ligamentSurgeryComplicationOsteotomyPatellar ligamentPatellar tendonAnterior cruciate ligament

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This retrospective study identified 32 cases of patellar luxation which occurred as a complication of surgical intervention for cranial cruciate ligament rupture (CCLR). The complication was recorded mostly in larger (≥20 kg) dogs with the Labrador Retriever being the most common breed. The complication followed extracapsular, intra-capsular and tibial plateau levelling surgery. The mean time from CCLR surgery to the diagnosis of patellar luxation was 14 weeks. The incidence of patellar luxation occurring as a complication of surgical intervention for CCLR was 0.18% of all CCLR corrective procedures. Corrective surgery for patellar luxation was successful in 79% of stifles. The patellar reluxation rate was significantly lower (p=0.0007) when at least one corrective osteotomy (tibial tuberosity transposition, femoral trochlear sulcoplasty or tibial plateau levelling osteotomy with tibial axial re-alignment) was performed (35%), compared to when corrective osteotomy was not performed (100% patellar reluxation rate). When performing corrective surgery for patellar luxation following CCLR surgery, at least one corrective osteotomy should be performed in order to reduce the patellar reluxation rate. The correction of patellar luxation following surgery for CCLR is challenging and carries a significant rate of failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and TraumatologySame topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207