Effect of Presurgical Iodine‐Based Disinfection on Bacterial Colonization of the Equine Peripodal Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare bacterial colonization after diluted iodine tincture or povidone iodine solution for presurgical disinfection of the equine peripodal region. STUDY DESIGN: Complete block design. ANIMALS: Five horses. METHODS: Disinfection protocols using iodine tincture or povidone iodine solutions were tested on 5 pairs (n = 10) equine front feet. Iodine tincture was applied to the left feet and povidone iodine to the right feet. Fixed surfaces of the sole, frog, hoof wall, and peripodal skin were swabbed pre-preparation (T0), after a standard pre-disinfection step (T1), after short disinfection with a 4-minute application of 0.5% iodine tincture or povidone iodine (T2), and after long disinfection with 12-hour soaking in 0.25% iodine tincture or povidone iodine (T3). Quantitative bacteriology was performed on each swab. RESULTS: The frog and sole were the most contaminated sites compared to hoof wall and skin at T0. Bacterial counts were significantly decreased at T2 for both solutions. Bacterial counts did not change significantly with iodine tincture at T3 but increased with povidone iodine compared to T2. Skin abrasions were detected on almost all feet but were subjectively more severe on iodine tincture-treated feet. CONCLUSION: Soaking for 12 hours with either iodine tincture or povidone iodine is not recommended as these solutions damaged the skin and bacterial recolonization was noted with povidone iodine. Four-minute disinfection using either iodine tincture or povidone iodine (0.5% available iodine) is appropriate for presurgical preparation of the equine peripodal region.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".