Biomechanics of landing in injured and uninjured chickens and the role of meloxicam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Birds use their legs and wings when transitioning from aerial to ground locomotion during landing. To improve our understanding of the effects of footpad dermatitis (FPD) and keel bone fracture (KBF) upon landing biomechanics in laying hens, we measured ground-reaction forces generated by hens (n = 37) as they landed on force plates (Bertec Corporation, Columbus, OH) from a 30 cm drop or 170 cm jump in a single-blinded placebo-controlled trial using a cross-over design where birds received an anti-inflammatory (meloxicam, 5 mg/kg body mass) or placebo treatment beforehand. We used generalized linear mixed models to test for effects of health status, treatment and their interaction on landing velocity (m/s), maximum resultant force (N), and impulse (force integrated with respect to time [N s]). Birds with FPD and KBF tended to show divergent alterations to their landing biomechanics when landing from a 30 cm drop, with a higher landing velocity and maximum force in KBF compared to FPD birds, potentially indicative of efforts to either reduce the use of their wings or impacts on inflamed footpads. In contrast, at 170 cm jumps fewer differences between birds of different health statuses were observed likely due to laying hens being poor flyers already at their maximum power output. Our results indicate that orthopedic injuries, apart from being welfare issues on their own, may have subtle influences on bird mobility through altered landing biomechanics that should be considered.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".