Assessing Pain Control Efficacy of Meloxicam and Ketoprofen When Compounded with Iron Dextran in Nursing Piglets Using A Navigation Chute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of analgesics such as meloxicam and ketoprofen to control pain in piglets when mixed with iron dextran (ID) before injection is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare perceived pain in castrated piglets treated 1 h before castration with either of these drugs alone, or when mixed with ID, by observing the time it takes for piglets to navigate a chute. Piglets were divided into seven treatment groups (n = 25 piglets per treatment group) including castration with analgesia (meloxicam or ketoprofen), castration with analgesic plus ID, castration without analgesic or ID, sham handled and given ID, and sham handled alone. Piglets were placed in a short chute and their time to navigate the chute was recorded at four timepoints following castration. Piglets given meloxicam or ketoprofen, with or without ID did not differ from each other in their chute navigation times. Additionally, these piglets did not differ from treatment groups that were not castrated. Piglets castrated without analgesia had significantly longer navigation times. These results indicate that meloxicam or ketoprofen, whether mixed with ID prior to injection or not, provide similar analgesic efficacy.
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) | 0.000 | 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".