MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412463022 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1810311

Subchondral Bone Disease, Treatments, and Outcomes in Nonracing Horses

2025· article· en· W4412463022 on OpenAlexaff
C. F. Brown, Stacie Aarsvold, Rebecca E. Bergee, E. M. Collar

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsGibson Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseSubchondral boneInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicineOsteoarthritisArticular cartilage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Subchondral bone disease is frequently diagnosed on MRI, but no standardized treatment protocol exists. Our objectives were to review subchondral bone disease lesions and treatments in a population of horses referred for MRI and to assess outcomes (soundness and return to work). Materials and Methods: MRI (1.5 T) reports from 2014 to 2023 and follow-up information from clients and referring veterinarians were reviewed. Lesions were categorized as either Grade 0 (margin irregularity), 1 (sclerosis/minimal bone loss), or 2 (bone loss/STIR hyperintensity). Treatments were grouped into rest/shoeing changes, conservative management more than rest/shoeing (e.g., injections), and surgical treatment. Data was analysed using chi-square analysis with significance at p ≤ 0.05. Results: Eighty-seven subchondral bone lesions (67 limbs and 41 horses) were evaluated, with only the primary lame limb included for analysis. Follow-up was obtained in 36/41 cases, with 20 cases having bone lesions as the primary cause of lameness. No significant differences in outcomes were found between treatments (rest/shoeing changes 80% [4/5] sound and 100% [5/5] returned to work; conservative management 75% [6/8] sound and returned to work; surgical treatment 86% [6/7] sound and returned to work) or lesion grade. Compared with the number that returned to work (85%), horses were less likely (47%) to return at the same level or higher than they were performing pretreatment ( p = 0.01). Discussion/Conclusion: Treatment choice appeared to depend on the severity or type of lesion. Limitations include variation of lesion severity within grades. As long as some targeted treatment is provided for the diagnosed subchondral lesions, most horses appear to improve. Acknowledgment The study was funded through the University of Tennessee Center of Excellence Summer Veterinary Scholars Program. Publication History Article published online: 15 July 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and TraumatologySame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207