Clinical Characterisation of Caudal Traumatic Malocclusions and Treatment Outcomes in Cats (2018–2022)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caudal malocclusions in cats may result in a variety of traumatic lesions affecting the soft tissues of the ipsilateral mandible such as fovea, gingival cleft, and proliferative lesions. Fifty-one cats diagnosed with a traumatic caudal malocclusion were compared with a control hospital population and evaluated for prevalence with respect to breed and sex. Twenty-two cats that were treated had radiographic, clinical findings, and the outcome of treatment (extraction or odontoplasty) recorded. Maine Coon, Persian, and male neutered cats were overrepresented while Domestic Shorthairs were underrepresented within the study population. Radiographically, 50% of the fovea lesions had an area of decreased bone density in the region of the lesion and none of these had evidence of periodontal disease. All gingival cleft lesions had radiographic changes consistent with periodontal disease. 15.4% of proliferative lesions presented with radiographic changes, with only half of those presenting with both radiographic and clinical evidence of periodontal disease. Eleven cats were treated by odontoplasty and eleven by extraction. One cat treated by odontoplasty developed new lesions caudally, and another had persistence of the initial lesions. Two cats in the extraction group developed new lesions rostral to the extracted teeth. In most instances, odontoplasty or extraction resulted in successful soft tissue lesion resolution. In rare cases, additional treatment was necessary due to either persistence or development of new lesions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".