Screening ultrasonographic findings of Thoroughbred weanling horses show agreement with concurrent radiographic examination and with subsequent yearling sales radiographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Background A screening ultrasonographic examination of yearling Thoroughbred horses has been described which can be performed on farm, as an adjunct to pre‐sale yearling radiography. Objectives To compare ultrasonographic and radiographic findings in young Thoroughbred horses in the detection of osteochondrosis. Study design Descriptive and comparative study using ultrasonography and radiography. Methods Forty‐four horses with a mean age of 10 months underwent an ultrasonographic screening protocol of joint groups including the bilateral stifle, tarsal, carpal and metacarpophalangeal/metatarsophalangeal joints. Concurrent standardised radiographic projections of all the joints were also undertaken. A cohort of 26 of these horses had a second set of radiographs taken for yearling sales approximately 6 months later. Two reviewers reviewed all images for presence or absence of osteochondrosis lesions. Comparison of the ultrasonographic and radiographic findings was undertaken using Gwet's AC1 and the Landis and Kock scale. Results The principal observer identified 48 ultrasonographic lesions and 15 radiographic lesions on the initial examination. Overall, there was agreement in screening for osteochondrosis using ultrasonographic and radiographic lesions, however, with varying levels of agreement for different joint groups. Agreement for individual joint groups was almost perfect for the carpal (0.98) and metatarsophalangeal joints (0.81), substantial for the stifle joints (0.67), moderate for the metacarpophalangeal joint (0.59) with only fair agreement of the tarsal joints (0.30). Six osteochondral lesions were recorded on the second set of radiographs. There was overall substantial agreement between the ultrasonographic findings and the second set of radiographs. A second observer reviewed the ultrasonographic and radiographic images. There was moderate interobserver agreement comparing ultrasonographic images, and almost perfect interobserver agreement comparing radiographic images. Main limitations Small number of horses who presented for yearling sale radiography for comparison. One ultrasonographer acquired all images, and two observers reviewed the images. Conclusion Ultrasonographic screening of yearling horses with a relatively low number of lesions showed agreement with concurrent and yearling sale radiographs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".