Radiographic quantification of the normal and near-normal coxofemoral conformation in Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherds: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Canine hip dysplasia (CHD) is a multifactorial disease affecting large breed dogs with associated joint laxity and incongruity that predisposes them to osteoarthritis. The purpose of the study is to objectively compare the conformation of normal and near-normal coxofemoral joints (CFJ S ) in Labrador Retrievers versus German Shepherds on the extended ventrodorsal radiograph. Investigated groups were categorized as normal and near-normal CFJ S according to the morphometric criteria established by the FCI scoring system. Center-edge (CE) angle, Norberg angle (NA), indices of dorsal AFH coverage width and area, acetabular slope (AS) angle, and inclination angle were determined for each group. CE angle and AS angle were modified from previously described human techniques. The width and area of dorsal AFH coverage were standardized by the corresponding femoral head diameter and area. Variables were compared between groups using an unpaired, two-tailed t -test. A Spearman correlation coefficient determined the relationship between selected variables. Results In Labradors, CE angle (lateral coverage) and dorsal AFH coverage area index (dorsal coverage) were greater in normal versus near-normal CFJ S . In German Shepherds, lateral AFH coverage (CE angle and NA) was greater in normal versus near-normal hip joints; whereas, dorsal AFH coverage did not differ between the two groups. Lateral AFH coverage was greater in normal versus near-normal CFJ S of both breeds. In Labradors, the inclination angle was greater in near-normal versus normal CFJ S . Normal CFJ S of Labradors revealed greater lateral and dorsal AFH coverages compared to German Shepherds. Near-normal joints of Labradors showed greater lateral AFH coverage compared to those of German Shepherds; whereas, dorsal AFH coverage did not differ between the two breeds. A steeper acetabular slope angle was noted in normal and near-normal CFJ S of German Shepherds compared to Labrador Retrievers. The inclination angle of near-normal joints was greater in Labrador Retrievers compared to German Shepherds. Conclusions Overall, normal and near-normal CFJ S of German Shepherds had lesser AFH coverage and steeper acetabular slope angle compared to Labrador Retrievers. Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherds with CE-angles < 27° and < 21.8°, dorsal AFH coverage width indices < 51 and < 49%, and/or dorsal AFH coverage area indices < 53 and < 50%, respectively, may be consistent with CHD. Thus, the authors would recommend excluding subjects with lower values from breeding. Validating the reported measurements is still warranted.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".