Hoof slip duration at impact in galloping Thoroughbred ex-racehorses trialling eight shoe-surface combinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horseshoes used during racing are a major determinant of safety as they play a critical role in providing traction with the ground surface. Although excessive hoof slip is detrimental and can predispose to instabilities, falls and injuries, some slip is essential to dissipate energy and lower stresses on the limb tissues during initial loading. This study aimed to quantify hoof slip duration in retired Thoroughbred racehorses galloping over turf and artificial (Martin Collins Activ-Track) tracks at the British Racing School in the following four shoeing conditions: 1) aluminium; 2) steel; 3) GluShu (aluminium-rubber composite); and 4) barefoot. High-speed video cameras (Sony DSC-RX100M5) filmed 389 hoof-ground interactions from 13 galloping Thoroughbreds at 1000 frames per second. A marker wand secured to the lateral aspect of the hoof wall aided tracking of horizontal and vertical hoof position in Tracker software over time, so the interval of hoof displacement immediately following impact (hoof slip duration) could be identified. Data were collected from leading and non-leading forelimbs at speeds ranging from 24-56 km h-1. Linear mixed models assessed whether surface, shoeing condition or speed influenced hoof slip duration (significance at p≤0.05). Day and horse-jockey pair were included as random factors and speed was included as a covariate. Mean hoof slip duration was similar amongst forelimbs and the non-leading hindlimb (20.4-21.5 ms) but was shortest in the leading hindlimb (18.3±10.2 ms, mean ± 2.S.D.). Slip durations were 2.1-3.5 ms (p≤0.05) longer on the turf than on the artificial track for forelimbs and the non-leading hindlimb, but they were 2.5 ms shorter on the turf than on the artificial track in the leading hindlimb (p = 0.025). In the leading hindlimb, slip durations were also significantly longer for the aluminium shoeing condition compared to barefoot, by 3.7 ms. There was a significant negative correlation between speed and slip duration in the leading forelimb. This study emphasises the importance of evaluating individual limb biomechanics when applying external interventions that impact the asymmetric galloping gait of the horse. Hoof slip durations and the impact of shoe-surface effects on slip were limb specific. Further work is needed to relate specific limb injury occurrence to these hoof slip duration data.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".