Comparison of Hounsfield Units within the Humeral Trochlea and Medial Coronoid Process in a Population of Labrador X Golden Retriever Guide Dogs and Border Collies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to determine if variations in Hounsfield units (HU) are present within the elbow between asymptomatic dogs of two breeds of dogs susceptible to elbow dysplasia. Study Design Guide Dogs and Border Collies that presented for routine computed tomography (CT) screening for elbow dysplasia prior to breeding were evaluated. All dogs had no documented history of lameness. Dogs diagnosed with CT as being free of elbow dysplasia were included. The CT images were randomized and assessed by three blinded observers. A standardised approach to CT image reconstruction to create consistent image planes was used. Hounsfield units were measured within a standardised region of interest (ROI) at the humeral trochlea and medial coronoid process. The minimum, mean and maximum HU within each ROI was recorded. Results Eighty-six elbows were included in the study with 32 Guide Dogs, and 11 Border Collies. Guide Dogs had significantly higher minimum (99.75 HU, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.02–184.48, p = 0.022), mean (115.09 HU, 95% CI: 80.53–149.64, p < 0.01) and maximum (74.00 HU, 95% CI: 44.58–103.42, p < 0.01) difference in HU within the medial coronoid process ROI, and significantly higher mean (146.49 HU, 95% CI: 100.12–192.87, p < 0.01) and maximum (147.77 HU, 95% CI: 102.57–192.97, p < 0.01) difference in HU within the humeral trochlea ROI. Conclusion In this dataset breed variations in elbow HU were present between asymptomatic Guide Dogs and Border Collies. This needs to be considered in breeding screening programmes to avoid over-interpretation of elbow sclerosis, in the absence of elbow pathology.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".