The Ontario Veterinary College Hip Certification Program -- assessing inter- and intra-observer repeatability and comparison of findings to those of the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC) has offered radiographic screening for hip dysplasia for many years, but there are other options for this service including the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA). There are some differences between the OFA and the OVC methods, and this study compares the OVC and OFA hip certification results in 37 dogs. There was good agreement between the two programs but in some instances there was a difference in the pass/fail status of a dog. Neither the OFA nor the OVC was more likely to fail or pass a given dog. The repeatability of the OVC results was assessed by both inter- and intra-observer comparisons in 100 dogs. There was at least 86% agreement among and within radiologists, but in 5 cases the disagreement resulted in a difference in the pass/fail status of the dog. These results illustrate the inherent variation in radiographic hip evaluation and highlight the importance of consensus grading practices to improve the accuracy of hip evaluation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".