PSX-29 Lidobands for Use in Lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vivo release concentrations of lidocaine into scrotal neck tissues and tail tissues following the application of lidocaine-loaded elastrator bands (LLBs) at acute time points (0.5, 1, 2, 24, and 72 hours) and chronic time points (14, 21, 28, and 35 days). To correlate the reaction of an animal to peripheral variable nerve stimulation with scrotal tissue lidocaine concentration. To correlate cortisol and substance P concentrations in treated animals at baseline (time 0) and 24, 72, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days to a control group. Fifty lambs were divided into ten groups consisting of Acute Pain Groups: Group A: 5 intact males. After baseline body weights, blood samples, and electro-cutaneous responses were collected, animals were band-castrated and tail-docked via LLBs on day 0, time (T) = 0. At T = 0.5 hr, the band was removed, and an electro-cutaneous response was measured at the tissue at the band sites. Punch tissue biopsies (including skin and subcutaneous tissue) were collected from the areas in direct contact with the band at each site for a total of 4 biopsies per animal. Group B: repeat of group A with the band removed and animal tested at T = 1 hr, Group C: T = 2 hr, Group D: T = 24 hr, Group E: T = 72 hr, Chronic Pain Groups: Group F: T = 14 d, Group G: T = 21 d, Group H: T = 28 d, Group I: T = 35 d, Control Group: Group J: repeat of group A except animals were band castrated and tail-docking with control bands (i.e., no lidocaine) on day 0. Body weight was recorded at T = 0 and 14, 21, and 28 d. A blood sample was collected at T = 0, 24, 72 hr, then T = 8, 21, 28, and 35 d. LLBs yielded decreased stimulation scores by 1 hr (60 min) post-banding with the tails and by 2 hr (120 min) for the scrotums. There were no adverse events or device failures (i.e., band breakage or failure to castrate/ tail-dock) observed during this study. Lidocaine-infused bands hold promise for reducing pain associated with castration and tail docking in lambs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".