Evaluation of analgesia resulting from extracorporeal shock wave therapy and radial pressure wave therapy in the limbs of horses and sheep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the duration and potential mechanisms of analgesia following extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and radial pressure wave therapy (RPWT) in limbs of horses and sheep. ANIMALS: 6 horses and 30 sheep. PROCEDURE: An electrical stimulus was used to identify the nociceptive threshold for each horse daily for 3 days before treatment (baseline) with ESWT or RPWT, 8 hours after treatment, and at 24-hour intervals for 7 days after treatment. Testing was conducted for the treatment field (midmetacarpus or midmetatarsus) and nerve field (medial and lateral forelimb heel bulbs) distal to a treatment site that included the nerve on the abaxial surface of the proximal sesamoid bone. All 4 limbs of 30 sheep were treated with ESWT, RPWT, or a sham treatment. Two sheep were euthanatized daily and tissue harvested for histologic evaluation of nerves, and concentrations of substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide were measured in the skin and periosteum. RESULTS: Values did not differ significantly between baseline and after treatment for the treatment field or nerve field sensation. There was a large difference in the slope when data for horses were plotted for the first 3 days after treatment, compared with the slope for days 4 to 7 after treatment. No differences were found in neuropeptide concentrations after treatment of the sheep, but there was an inflammatory response in the treated nerves. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A small cutaneous analgesic effect may exist at the treatment site for approximately 3 days after ESWT or RPWT in horses.
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".