Are there laterality differences in passive flexion and extension of the proximal limb joints in working Siberian Husky dogs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences between left and right-side joint range of motion may affect canine locomotive ability and movement. Passive range of motion (PROM) joint measurement provides the limits that a particular joint can move in its physiological planes of motion without influence of muscle activity. To compare left and right-side flexion and extension of the glenohumeral, humeroulnar/humeroradial, coxofemoral and femorotibial joints and for laterality PROM differences. Siberian Husky dogs were selected (n = 18) of mixed gender, aged (1.4–11.8) years living and working together from a single kennel. Joint PROM was measured using goniometry, a validated, non-invasive method, by the same investigator previously tested for acceptable measurement repeatability. Dogs were conscious and placed in standing position. Triplicate measures of joint flexion and extension were taken on both sides of each dog for afore-mentioned joints. Median values of triplicate measures were computed. Paired t-tests compared laterality of joint PROM, gender, age (< 6 vs. > 6 years) effects. Inferential symmetry indices [SI] were calculated. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between left and right-side flexion and extension measures for all joints. Gender had no significant effect (p > 0.05) on joint flexion or extension measures for all joints. Age (< 6 vs. > 6 years) had a significant effect on right hip flexion (p < 0.001) and for both left and right-side shoulder flexion (p < 0.001); elbow flexion (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001); hip extension (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001) respectively. The shoulder joint showed greatest PROM asymmetry (SI = 3.63%). Bilateral PROM measures are important to consider in joint movement and assessment. These results warrant further investigation with larger cohorts of defined age groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".