Computed tomography identifies the proximodorsomedial subchondral bone of equine central tarsal bones as a predilection site for sclerosis, demineralisation and associated fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The distribution pattern of central tarsal bone (CTB) changes has not been described, except for slab- and dorsomedial-plantarolateral fractures. OBJECTIVES: To describe CTB changes in CT and document their distribution and associations. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Standing and recumbent tarsal CT studies from 94 clinical cases were retrospectively evaluated. General case information, degree of sclerosis (none-severe), lesions (demineralisation, cystoid, fissure/fracture) and their location were recorded, dividing CTBs into 8 regions. RESULTS: Eighty five of 94 tarsi showed at least one region of moderate to severe sclerosis, of which 90% affected the dorsomedial region. The prevalence of lesions was significantly associated with higher degrees of sclerosis (p = 0.04) at this site. Of 32 demineralising lesions, 21 were in the proximal subchondral bone dorsomedially. Twenty-four CTBs showed fissures/fractures; 19/24 were in a dorsomedial-plantarolateral direction, and 17/19 were associated with demineralisation. Of five fissures/fractures with different configurations, none had associated demineralisation. There were 27 cyst-like lesions, 21/27 in the distal subchondral bone, of which almost half (13/27) located medially. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design; heterogeneous, warmblood-oriented population; no clinical correlation of findings nor histological confirmation of described changes. CONCLUSIONS: Given the links between sclerosis, demineralisation and fissures/fractures, the dorsomedial proximal subchondral bone plate of the CTB must be scrutinised both in CT and radiography.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".