Pain Induced by a Minor Medical Procedure (Bone Marrow Aspiration) in Dogs: Comparison of Pain Scales in a Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspiration (BMA) is a clinical procedure frequently performed in dogs. OBJECTIVE: To compare levels of pain intensity induced by 3 different BMA procedures using several pain scoring instruments. ANIMALS: Sixteen healthy Beagles. METHODS: A prospective experimental pilot study was conducted using blinded observers. Dogs were randomized into 3 groups: iliac BMA under sedation (Iliac-Sed, n = 4), sternum BMA under sedation (Stern-Sed, n = 4), and sternum BMA on conscious dogs without sedation (Stern-No-Sed, n = 8). RESULTS: Using the SF-Glasgow pain scale, the overall pain score in the Stern-No-Sed group was lower than that in the Stern-Sed group (P = 0.04). Using the 4A-VET pain scale, the effects of procedures over time on pain scores did not differ between and within groups. An inactivity index indicated that the overall score for the Stern-No-Sed group was significantly lower than the scores for the Stern-Sed and Iliac-Sed groups (P ≤ 0.01). There was a significant association in pain assessment using the SF-Glasgow and 4A-VET pain scales (P = 0.0004). When comparing the SF-Glasgowscale to the 4A-VET pain scale, the scores for the Stern-No-Sed group were lower compared to those of the Stern-Sed scores (P = 0.03). Based on telemetered motor activity, the Iliac-Sed group may have experienced more discomfort during the post-procedural period. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Dogs may experience mild to moderate pain after BMA procedures, and the sternal site should be preferred. The SF-Glasgow pain scale showed better interobserver reliability, but the 4A-VET scale was less biased by sedation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".