MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385897890 · doi:10.1111/evj.13990

The influence of different horseshoes and ground substrates on mid‐stance hoof orientation at the walk

2023· article· en· W4385897890 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick T. Reilly, Andrew W. van Eps, Darko Stefanovski, Thilo Pfau

Bibliographic record

VenueEquine Veterinary Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHoofSagittal planeTransverse planeGeologyHorseshoe (symbol)ToeAnatomyMaterials scienceMathematicsMedicineStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Horseshoes with modified contact surfaces combined with deformable ground substrates are used to change hoof orientation during mid-stance, for example, for therapeutic reasons. OBJECTIVES: To measure the effect of horseshoes and ground substrates on sagittal and transverse plane hoof orientation at mid-stance using a dorsal hoof wall mounted triaxial accelerometer. STUDY DESIGN: In vivo experiment, randomised crossover design. METHODS: Differences in sagittal and transverse plane angles between standing and mid-stance of the left front hoof of six horses walking with regular horseshoes, egg bar, toe-wide, medial-wide, lateral-wide and three-degree egg bar shoes on turf, sand and hard ground substrates were assessed with linear mixed models with horseshoe and substrate type as fixed factors (p < 0.05) for each animal. RESULTS: Hoof angles were significantly affected by horseshoe (p < 0.001), surface (p < 0.001) and the combination (p < 0.001). The sagittal plane angle increased in deformable ground substrates at walk-in mid-stance on turf [mean (±standard deviation): 2.6° (±3.8°)] and on sand [2.6° (±4.1°)] across all shoes. The greatest increase was observed with egg bar shoes [turf: 4.37° (±3.82°); sand 4.69° (±3.83°)]. There was a tendency for the hoof to sink laterally into deformable ground substrates among all shoes [turf: 1.11° (±1.49°); sand: 0.93° (±1.93°)]. Medial-wide shoes increased the lateral sinking [turf: 2.00° (±1.63°); sand: 1.79° (±1.58°)]. Lateral-wide shoes reduced the lateral sinking on turf [0.62° (±1.26°)] and induced a marginal medial sinking on sand [-0.007° (±2.03°)]. MAIN LIMITATIONS: The substrate properties were not quantitatively assessed, and observations were limited to front hooves at the walk. A larger sample size would be preferable. CONCLUSIONS: Mid-stance hoof orientation changes with specific combinations of shoes and ground substrates in the walking horse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEquine Veterinary JournalSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207