Racing performance of Standardbred horses following surgical treatment of apical proximal sesamoid bone fractures (49 cases)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Background Apical proximal sesamoid bone (PSB) fractures are a common occurrence in Standardbred racehorses due to the high‐intensity nature of their work. Several studies have evaluated the racing performance after surgical removal of apical fracture fragments in Thoroughbred horses, however information pertaining to Standardbred racehorses is limited. Objectives To (i) describe the distribution of apical PSB fractures in a population of Standardbred racehorses; and (ii) measure return to athletic ability in these horses following surgical removal of apical PSB fracture fragments. Study design Retrospective. Methods Medical records of Standardbred racehorses presenting to the Atlantic Veterinary College (AVC) for surgical treatment of an apical PSB fracture were reviewed. Lifetime racing records were obtained, and the five race starts before injury and the five race starts following surgical treatment were analysed for total earnings and number of top‐3 placings for each horse. Results Thirty‐three horses raced following surgery; 22 of which were racing prior to injury. No significant differences were found in top‐3 placings or monetary earnings for the 22 horses which had raced prior to and after surgery. There was no significant difference in limb or sesamoid affected and return to racing. No associations were found between type of surgery performed or degree of suspensory desmitis and whether the horse returned to racing. Main limitations Small sample size. Conclusions 88% of horses that were racing prior to injury also raced following surgical treatment of an apical PSB fracture. Surgical removal of apical PSB fractures in Standardbred racehorses does not appear to affect their future athletic ability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".