Assessment of Body Condition in Long-Distance Sled Dogs: Validation of the Body Condition Score and Its Association with Ultrasonographic, Plicometric, and Anthropometric Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to validate the 9-point body condition score (BCS) system in sled dogs by assessing its reliability and by comparing it with objective measures including real-time ultrasonography, plicometry, and anthropometry. Twenty-seven Siberian Huskies (11 females, 16 males) from three sled dog teams were assessed for BCS by three trained veterinarians and their respective mushers. Intra-observer reliability was substantial (Krippendorff’s α = 0.734), while agreement between expert raters (Kα = 0.580) and between the expert rater and mushers (Kα = 0.691) was moderate, with mushers tending to overestimate the BCS of their own dogs (median difference = −0.5). BCS showed positive correlations with body mass index (BMI) and subcutaneous fat at the chest and flank via plicometry (for all: p < 0.05). Ultrasonography showed weak correlations with BCS, likely due to the different anatomical layers evaluated and the distinctively high muscle-to-fat ratio typical of sled dogs. Both univariate and multivariate analyses revealed sex- and neutering-related differences in body composition, with males generally presenting larger skeletal dimensions and neutering influencing patterns of fat distribution. These findings support the reliability and field applicability of the BCS system when used by trained evaluators, highlighting the importance of considering sex and anatomical site when assessing body condition in athletic dogs. The 9-point BCS, combined with accessible objective tools, represents a consistent, cost-effective method for monitoring body condition in long-distance performance sled dogs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".