Withers vertical movement symmetry is useful for locating the primary lame limb in naturally occurring lameness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During orthopaedic assessment of lame horses, a head nod is commonly present in both primary forelimb and hindlimb lame horses. Additional motion metrics that could assist clinicians in correctly differentiating between these two scenarios would be of great clinical value. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to examine whether withers movement asymmetry can be used in a clinical setting to distinguish primary forelimb lameness from compensatory head movement asymmetry due to primary hindlimb lameness. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, multicentre study. METHODS: Movement asymmetry of head, withers and pelvis was measured using multi-camera optical motion capture, as part of routine lameness investigations at four European equine hospitals. Vertical movement asymmetry parameters from 317 horses trotting in a straight line were compared before and after successful diagnostic analgesia of a single limb. Descriptive statistics, t-tests and linear models were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: In forelimb lame horses, 80%-81% showed head and withers asymmetry both indicating lameness in the same forelimb. In hindlimb lame horses, 69%-72% showed head asymmetry ipsilateral to the lame hindlimb and withers asymmetry diagonal to the lame hindlimb, thus, head and withers asymmetry indicated lameness in different forelimbs. A large (>15 mm) compensatory head nod was seen in 28%-31% of the hindlimb lame horses. In 89%-92% of these, head and withers asymmetry indicated lameness in different forelimbs. Withers asymmetry decreased linearly with reduced head or pelvic asymmetry for both forelimb and hindlimb lame horses. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Compensatory strategies were evaluated on group level to identify common patterns, potentially ignoring uncommon individual strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Withers vertical movement asymmetry metrics can be useful in helping to locate the primary lame limb during quantitative lameness assessment. Head and withers movement asymmetry parameters generally indicate the same forelimb in forelimb lame horses, but different forelimbs in hindlimb lame horses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".