A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Monensin in Lactating Dairy Cattle. Part 3. Health and Reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A meta-analysis of the impact of monensin on health and reproductive outcomes in dairy cattle was conducted. A total of 16 papers were identified with sufficient data and quality to evaluate health and reproductive outcomes for monensin. The available trials provided approximately 9,500 cows with sufficient data for analysis. This provided good statistical power to examine the effects of monensin on health and reproduction. Over all the trials analyzed, monensin decreased the risk of ketosis [relative risk (RR) = 0.75], displaced abomasums (RR = 0.75), and mastitis (RR = 0.91). No significant effects of monensin were found for milk fever, lameness, dystocia, retained placenta, or metritis. Monensin had no effect on first-service conception risk (RR = 0.97) or days to pregnancy (hazard ratio = 0.93). However, the impact of monensin on dystocia, retained placenta, and metritis was heterogeneous for all 3 outcome measures and random effect models were utilized. Causes of the heterogeneity were explored with meta-regression. Days of treatment with monensin before calving increased the risk of dystocia. Delivery method of monensin influenced the incidence of retained placenta and metritis, with risk being lower with controlled release capsule treatment compared with delivery in either topdress or in a total mixed ration. Days of treatment before calving also influenced retained placenta with an increase in risk with more days treated before calving. Improvements in ketosis, displaced abomasums, and mastitis with monensin were achieved. Exposure to prolonged treatment in the dry period with monensin may increase the risk of dystocia and retained placenta.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".