Analgesic effects of meloxicam administration on postoperative orthopedic pain in domestic pigeons (Columba livia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the analgesic effects of 2 doses of meloxicam on the degree of postoperative orthopedic pain in pigeons. ANIMALS: 21 domestic pigeons (Columba livia). PROCEDURES: In each bird, a standardized osteotomy of 1 femur was performed and the fracture was immobilized with an intramedullary pin. Birds were randomly allocated to receive saline (0.9% NaCl) solution (control) or meloxicam (0.5 mg/kg [low dose] or 2.0 mg/kg [high dose]). The first treatment was administered i.m. after surgery was completed. Subsequent treatments were administered p.o. every 12 hours for 9 days. Degree of postoperative pain was assessed for the first 4 days after surgery by use of 3 methods: an electronic perch for assessment of weight-bearing load differential of the pelvic limbs, 4 pain scales, and analysis of video-recorded partial ethograms for bird activity and posture. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the control group and the low-dose meloxicam group in any tested variable. The high-dose meloxicam group had a greater degree of weight bearing on the affected limb from the second to the fourth postoperative day as well as lower pain scores for at least the first 2 postoperative days, compared with the other groups. Return to presurgical behavior was achieved faster in pigeons that received high-dose meloxicam than in the other groups. No adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Administration of meloxicam at 0.5 mg/kg appeared ineffective in minimizing postoperative orthopedic pain in pigeons, but the 2.0 mg/kg dose provided quantifiable analgesia that appeared safe in this species in experimental conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".