Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Meloxicam Between Healthy Post-partum vs. Mid-lactation Dairy Cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lactating dairy cattle are at risk for various painful conditions throughout their life, such as lameness, parturition, mastitis, and metabolic disorders. These conditions necessitate adequate methods of analgesia to address welfare concerns through efficacious pain mitigation. As no method of analgesia has been approved for lactating dairy cattle, to date, research is necessary to determine effective pain management strategies for dairy cattle. In both the European Union and Canada, meloxicam has been approved for use in lactating dairy cattle as a methodology for pain control. The objective of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics of meloxicam administered orally and intravenously to lactating dairy cattle in the post-partum vs. mid-lactation period. In this parallel study design, 12 healthy, lactating Holsteins were enrolled within 24 h of freshening and randomly allocated to intravenous (0.2 mg/kg) or oral (1.0 mg/kg) meloxicam administration treatment groups. They were matched based on parity to 12, healthy cows that were considered mid-lactation [>150 days-in-milk (DIM)] to receive the same treatment. Based on meloxicam formulation, sampling times varied and plasma was collection via jugular venipuncture for 6 days. Plasma drug concentrations were evaluated using liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectroscopy and pharmacokinetic properties were evaluated using non-compartmental (i.e., statistical moments) analysis. Results indicated a decreased systemic clearance of meloxicam in post-partum relative to mid-lactation cows, which resulted in a longer half-life and increased total exposure independent of mode of administration. These results suggest a need for dose adjustments based on stage in lactation and further assessment of the impact of days-in-milk on milk withholding period.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".