The Palatability and Comparative Efficacy of Meloxicam Oral Suspension for the Treatment of Chronic Musculoskeletal Disease in Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and ease of treatment of an oral meloxicam suspension for the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal lameness in horses. A crossover palatability study consisting of 30 healthy horses and ponies was conducted to compare the time to consume a 400-gram meal of oats alone to a 400-gram meal of oats top dressed with meloxicam oral suspension (MOS) (0.6 mg/kg body weight [BW]). The mean time to consume a 400-gram meal of oats only was 301.0 ± 145 seconds and was 286.3 ± 125.6 seconds for MOS. There was no difference between the consumption duration times of oats with or without MOS. Horses (77) were enrolled into a blinded, active-controlled, randomized clinical study. Treatment 1 consisted of animals receiving MOS (0.6 mg/kg BW q24 hours for 5 days), and treatment 2 consisted of animals receiving phenylbutazone paste (1 g/454 kg BW, q12 hours for 5 days). Animals were treated on day 0 and evaluated for lameness associated with of musculoskeletal disease on day 5. For both treatments 1 and 2, the day 5 lameness scores were significantly less than the day 0 lameness scores. At a walk and trot, there were no differences in efficacy between phenylbutazone and MOS (based on absolute score values, differences in scores between day 0 and day 5, and proportion of horses responding to treatment). It was concluded that MOS was palatable and effective for the treatment of musculoskeletal disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".