Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alcohol-based antisepsis has been extensively studied in human health care, but only little information is available regarding efficacy and tolerance in other species. The purpose of this study was to determine if an alcohol-based antiseptic is effective at reducing bacterial counts on equine skin and the appropriate contact time to do so, without causing any adverse skin reactions. Samples were collected before and after preparation from clipped sites over both jugular veins of horses and were plated on 3M Petrifilm Aerobic Count Plates in duplicate. Trial 1 tested an alcohol-based product (ET-80% ethanol) against a control of sterile saline at a contact time of 180-second. Trial 2 tested two different contact times of ET-90 and 180 seconds. All samples were assessed for colony-forming unit counts using an automated 3M Petrifilm reader. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test, and the significance was set at P < .05. The results determined that ET had a mean 2.95 log<sub>10</sub> reduction from prepreparation to postpreparation colony-forming unit counts. A significant difference in log reduction between ET and control (P = .0033) was observed. There was no difference in log<sub>10</sub> reduction between the two contact times (P = .75). Mild urticaria was the only skin reaction observed and was often present in both ET and control groups. These findings demonstrate that ET is effective at reducing bacterial counts on equine skin at a contact time of 90 seconds without producing significant adverse skin reaction.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".