Associations between Racing Thoroughbred Movement Asymmetries and Racing and Training Direction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Racehorses commonly train and race in one direction, which may result in gait asymmetries. This study quantified gait symmetry in two cohorts of Thoroughbreds differing in their predominant exercising direction; we hypothesized that there would be significant differences in the direction of asymmetry between cohorts. METHODS: 307 Thoroughbreds (156 from Singapore Turf Club (STC)-anticlockwise; 151 from Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC)-clockwise) were assessed during a straight-line, in-hand trot on firm ground with inertial sensors on their head and pelvis quantifying differences between the minima, maxima, upward movement amplitudes (MinDiff, MaxDiff, UpDiff), and hip hike (HHD). The presence of asymmetry (≥5 mm) was assessed for each variable. Chi-Squared tests identified differences in the number of horses with left/right-sided movement asymmetry between cohorts and mixed model analyses evaluated differences in the movement symmetry values. RESULTS: = 0.017) values were significantly different between cohorts; HKJC mean values indicated left fore- and hindlimb asymmetry, and STC mean values indicated right fore- and hindlimb asymmetry. CONCLUSION: the asymmetry differences between cohorts suggest that horses may adapt their gait to their racing direction, with kinematics reflecting reduced 'outside' fore- and hindlimb loading.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".