Short communication: Behavioral evaluation of the analgesic effect of flunixin meglumine in lame dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of flunixin meglumine treatment on lameness pain in dairy cows. Twenty-four lactating Holstein cows were enrolled in the study based on visual observation of abnormal locomotion. The primary measurement endpoint was weight-shifting between the rear limbs. Weight-shifting was calculated as the standard deviation of the weight borne on the rear limbs over a 15 min period; this value correlates directly with lameness pain in dairy cows. After collecting baseline weight-bearing data, we randomly assigned cows to 1 of 2 treatment groups: 2.2 mg/kg body weight flunixin meglumine (2 mL/45 kg) or an equivalent volume of isotonic sterile saline solution. Weight-bearing data were collected from each cow at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h after a single intravenous drug treatment. Mean locomotion scores over the 2 d before treatment were 2.38/5 in the flunixin-treated group and 2.43/5 in the saline-treated control group; these values were not significantly different. Weight-shifting values were also not significantly different on either pretreatment day. Cows treated with flunixin meglumine showed significantly less weight-shifting between the rear limbs at 6, 12, and 24 h after treatment compared with saline-treated controls, providing evidence that flunixin meglumine alleviates lameness-associated pain.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".