Efficacy of a Lidocaine-Impregnated Elastrator Band for Castration and Tail Docking in Lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority between lidocaine-impregnated ligation bands (LLBs) and control bands (CBs) with respect to the efficacy of castration and tail docking. Secondary objectives were to compare castration and tail-docking success, evaluate local site reactions, and compare average daily gain (ADG) between the treatment groups. A total of 238 male lambs were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive LLBs or CBs on their tail and scrotum. Lambs were weighed, had a health assessment, and the band site was observed on -3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 days after the bands were applied. A linear regression model was built to assess average daily gain, whereas a repeated measures model was used to evaluate body weight differences at each of the measured timepoints. Furthermore, logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations with casting outcomes. Few differences were noted between treatment groups with respect to casting success for the scrotum and tail and ADG over the entire experimental period. Non-inferiority calculations demonstrated no differences in tail docking and scrotal casting success, with casting occurring for the majority of animals by d 21 and d 42 for castration and tail docking, respectively. However, lambs receiving LLBs gained more weight from d -3 to 7 (+0.03 kg/d; 95% CI: 0 to 0.07), which may be an indication of effective pain control during the first week following band application. Overall, the use of an LLB does not affect the time to successful casting of the tail and could improve short-term growth when compared to a control band. Further studies are needed to compare LLBs to multimodal methods of pain relief.
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".