Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol‐based antisepsis on the paralumbar fossa in cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To determine skin reaction, post‐treatment reduction (immediate effect), and 1 hour post‐treatment reduction (sustained effect) of aerobic bacterial colony forming units (CFU) following three antiseptic protocols in cattle. Study design Prospective, randomized experimental study. Animals Eighteen cows. Methods Three sites in each paralumbar fossa were clipped and randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 5 minute 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrub (CHG); 90 second 80% ethanol scrub (ET); 90 second 70% isopropyl alcohol scrub (IPA). All sites were monitored at all sampling time points and at 24 hours following treatment for adverse skin reaction. Samples were collected pre‐, immediately post‐, and 1 hour post‐treatment and plated in duplicate. Bacterial counts were shifted to eliminate zeroes, log 10 transformed, and averaged. ANOVA was used to compare differences in mean reduction in log 10 CFU/ml between groups. Results Reduction in log10CFU/ml was more pronounced immediately after application of IPA ( p = .001) and ET ( p = .001) than CHG. This reduction was better sustained after preparation with CHG than ET ( p = .005) but not IPA. Immediate and sustained reductions in bacterial loads did not differ after application of IPA or ET. No adverse skin reactions were noted. Conclusions Skin preparation with alcohol‐based antiseptics was well tolerated and improved immediate bacterial reduction compared to CHG. This reduction was better sustained 1 hour after application of CHG than ET, but no difference was detected between CHG and IPA. Clinical relevance Lack of adverse skin reaction and performance provide evidence to support skin preparation with alcohol‐based antiseptics in cattle.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".