Comparative Evaluation of SIMPL Silicone Implants and NIT Natural Teat Inserts to Keep the Teat Canal Patent After Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was the comparative evaluation of SIMPL silicone implants and NIT natural teat inserts to keep the teat canal patent after teat surgery. The study was performed on 100 teats of 97 cows treated surgically for milk flow disorders. After surgery, 53 teats were administered with SIMPL and 47 with NIT, and rested for several days. Before treatment and 1 and 6 mo later quarter milk flow and milk yield were measured with Lactocorders; quarter milk was examined for somatic cell count (SCC), pathogens, and signs of mastitis (SCC > 100,000 and pathogens detected). Half a year after surgery milk flow, milk yield and SCC were equal from teats that had been inserted with SIMPL or NIT. The odds of detecting pathogens or signs of mastitis in the milk was lower in SIMPL than in NIT teats at this point in time. SIMPL teats stayed in the herd as long as NIT teats. Based on the results, it may be expected that teats inserted with a SIMPL or NIT do not differ long term in regards to milk flow, milk yield, SCC, and risk of removal from the herd. After the use of SIMPL, fewer pathogens may be detected in the milk long term than after the use of NIT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".