Inertial Sensor-Based Quantification of Movement Symmetry in Trotting Warmblood Show-Jumping Horses after “Limb-by-Limb” Re-Shoeing of Forelimbs with Rolled Rocker Shoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hoof care providers are pivotal for implementing biomechanical optimizations of the musculoskeletal system in the horse. Regular visits allow for the collection of longitudinal, quantitative information (“normal ranges”). Changes in movement symmetry, e.g., after shoeing, are indicative of alterations in weight-bearing and push-off force production. Ten Warmblood show jumping horses (7–13 years; 7 geldings, 3 mares) underwent forelimb re-shoeing with rolled rocker shoes, one limb at a time (“limb-by-limb”). Movement symmetry was measured with inertial sensors attached to the head, withers, and pelvis during straight-line trot and lunging. Normalized differences pre/post re-shoeing were compared to published test–retest repeatability values. Mixed-model analysis with random factors horse and limb within horse and fixed factors surface and exercise direction evaluated movement symmetry changes (p < 0.05, Bonferroni correction). Withers movement indicated increased forelimb push-off with the re-shod limb on the inside of the circle and reduced weight-bearing with the re-shod limb and the ipsilateral hind limb on hard ground compared to soft ground. Movement symmetry measurements indicate that a rolled rocker shoe allows for increased push-off on soft ground in trot in a circle. Similar studies should study different types of shoes for improved practically relevant knowledge about shoeing mechanics, working towards evidence-based preventative shoeing.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".