MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096196100

PREDISPOSITION OF DOG BREEDS TO RUPTURE OF THE CRANIAL CRUCIATE LIGAMENT

2000· article· en· W7096196100 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCruciate ligamentEtiologyOsteochondrosisStifle jointGenetic predispositionBreedIncidence (geometry)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obtaining more data on breed predisposition of dogs to the cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) rupture and data on accompanying abnormalities of joints of pelvic limbs affected by the CCL rupture may help in answering some questions concerning the etiology and pathogenesis of the disorder. In 183 patients affected by the CCL rupture out of the total of 11579 dogs, evaluated and/or treated in the Clinic of Surgery and Orthopedics at the Veterinary and Pharmaceutical University Brno from January 1997 till April 2000, the breed, weight, sex and concurrent joint abnormalities of pelvic limbs (hip dysplasia, patellar luxation and osteochondrosis of the stifle joint) were recorded. A total of 213 stifle joints (16.39 % of cases were bilateral CCL ruptures) were affected. Increased breed predisposition (χ2-test; p < 0.01) was found in American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler, Brazilian Fila, Labrador Retriever, American Cocker Spaniel, Chow Chow, German Shorthaired Pointer, Saint Bernard and Bullmastiff and also on the 5 % level of significance in Boxer. Contrary to published data, the high incidence of CCL rupture was found in Brazilian Fila (13.43 % of prevalence). The risk of the CCL rupture in German Shepherd Dog was significantly

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207