Efficacy of Digital Dermatitis treatment with non-antibiotic Hoof-Sol spray in dairy cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of a topical treatment spray for digital dermatitis (DD) was compared with oxytetracycline (OTC) spray, as a positive control, and a negative control on a 566-cow, freestall dairy farm in Alberta, Canada as a sub-project in a 10-farm study. The treatment consisted of a topical spray containing aloe vera plant extracts together with copper and zinc chelates as active substances (Hoof-Sol). After cleaning of the hind feet with water, DD lesions (stages M0-4.1) were identified using a bright headlamp and a mirror on a spatula. DD lesions were sequentially randomly assigned to one of three treatments: Hoof-Sol, OTC spray and negative control, using a randomization sheet. The three treatments were administered as a spray in blinded spray bottles. At the following parlor inspection (one week later), the lesions treated in the preceding week were reevaluated. When M1-M4.1 (M+) DD lesions were still the same at the next inspection or changed to another stages (except M0), a re-treatment with the same treatment as the previous week was applied. Cure was defined as an M+ lesion transitioned in an M0 lesion. Every hind foot with an M+ lesion enrolled at week 1 was followed until week 8 and treated weekly. The proportion of M+ lesions not cured after 8 weeks of treatment was 0.86 for Hoof-Sol (95% CI: 0.76 to 0.96) and 0.61 for OTC (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.74), which showed that the efficacy of OTC is higher than Hoof-Sol (P=0.005). The proportion of remaining M+ lesions for the negative control was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.98). The efficacy of Hoof-Sol for treatment of DD was therefore not different from the negative control (P=0.51), whereas OTC was more effective than the negative control (P=0.0003). M+ lesions were divided in active lesions (M1, M2 and M4.1) and in chronic lesions (M3 and M4). Comparing the different treatments in week 8, no difference was found for these various lesion stages. Except for the proportion of active lesions treated with OTC. The proportion was lower than for the negative control (P=0.0121).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".