Associação entre o ângulo de Norberg, o percentual de cobertura da cabeça femoral, o índice cortical e o ângulo de inclinação em cães com displasia coxofemoral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foram avaliadas 386 radiografias da articulação coxofemoral, sendo 220 de cães da raça Pastor Alemão, 112 machos e 108 fêmeas, e 166 da raça Labrador Retriever, 69 machos e 97 fêmeas. As radiografias foram classificadas segundo o grau de displasia coxofemoral (DCF), e foram mensurados o ângulo de inclinação, o ângulo de Norberg, o índice cortical e o percentual de cobertura da cabeça femoral de ambos os lados. As variáveis foram associadas mediante análise estatística multivariada de componentes principais. As variáveis índice cortical e ângulo de inclinação foram inversamente associadas. A raça Pastor Alemão apresentou valores de índice cortical e graus de DCF mais baixos em relação à raça Labrador Retriever. Maior ângulo de inclinação foi associado a menor ângulo de Norberg e menor percentual de cobertura. Animais mais velhos apresentaram menor ângulo de Norberg, menor porcentagem de cobertura e maior grau de DCF. Nas fêmeas, foram observados menor porcentagem de cobertura, menor ângulo de Norberg e maior grau de DCF. Pode-se concluir que o ângulo de inclinação e o índice cortical não demonstraram associação com a DCF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".