Comparison of Two Surgical Site Protocols for Cattle in a Field Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 preoperative surgical site protocols for standing laparotomy in cattle in a field setting. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. ANIMALS: Dairy cows (n = 73) undergoing a clean standing laparotomy (no visceral perforation during surgery). METHODS: Cows were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 preoperative skin-preparations protocols with chlorhexidine used as an antiseptic. A standard protocol (3 minutes [min] cleansing scrub, tap water rinse, 3 minutes surgical scrub with a sterile one-use chlorhexidine scrub and alternate passage of alcohol and 2% chlorhexidine solution (7 minutes; n = 32) was compared with a 3 minutes abbreviated preoperative protocol, consisting of two 90 seconds period of cleansing scrub and 3 passages of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% in isopropyl alcohol solution (4 minutes; n = 32). Pre- and postoperative skin bacterial counts and clinical assessment of wounds 10-15 days after surgery, as well as standardized interview with the producers focused on wound infection 30 days after the surgery were used to compare both protocols. RESULTS: There was no difference between protocols for absolute colony forming units (CFU) and percentage CFU reduction perioperatively as well as for surgical wound clinical score 10-15 days after the surgery. The infection rate at 30 days was 10.5% (6/57) but no significant difference was observed between protocols 10% (3/30) versus 11.5% (3/27). CONCLUSIONS: An abbreviated preoperative protocol using nonsterile reusable material can be as effective as a standard protocol using sterile one-use brush in reducing skin microflora and preventing surgical wound infection.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".