ArticleEquine veterinary journal2026
Agreement between veterinarians and three objective evaluation systems in naturally occurring equine lameness.
Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Smartphone-Based Technologies in Equine Sports Medicine: Supporting Athlete Management-A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSubjective lameness evaluations are critical components of equine musculoskeletal health assessments. Objective approaches can supplement diagnosis and may be preferred for specific cases and scientific purposes.
objectivesEvaluate agreements between subjective evaluation of two veterinarians and standard clinical interpretations from outputs of an AI-based smartphone application (Sleip; AI-SPA), the inertial measurement unit (IMU) system Equinosis Q Lameness Locator (LL), and the IMU system Equisym (ES). STUDY
designIn vivo experiment.
methodsTwenty-five research horses (10-30 years) were evaluated on a straight-line trot. Limbs were independently graded and converted to an ordinal scale that, for objective systems, were converted from system-specific data outputs. Default settings and outputs for AI-SPA and LL were utilised to grade lameness while a manual process was developed for the ES. Pairwise agreement was calculated via weighted Cohen's κ, and agreement across rater types was calculated via Gwet's Agreement Coefficient 2 (GA2).
resultsObjective evaluator agreement (GA2 = 0.84, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.77-0.91) was higher than subjective evaluator agreement (GA2 = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.63-0.83) across all limbs. For all five evaluators/systems, overall forelimb agreement (GA2 = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69-0.95) was greater than overall hindlimb agreement (GA2 = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59-0.87). Pairwise agreement scores between the objective systems were often higher than those involving veterinary evaluators. The ES system often produced the highest agreement when compared with each rater individually. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Horses were evaluated on a straight line only. Lameness diagnosis was limited to visual observation. Outcomes for each horse's four limbs were considered independent measurements.
conclusionsThis work highlights the utility of commercially available objective evaluation systems, including the more recent ES system. Hindlimb asymmetries had lower agreement regardless of evaluator type. Objective systems had higher agreements when compared with subjective straight-line veterinary examination. The ability to uniformly assess asymmetries may assist diagnosis when compared with subjective evaluation alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.