Flotation therapy for downer cows\n : a retrospective study of cases treated with flotation therapy at the Large animal clinic at the Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire at Université de Montréal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Downer cows as a syndrome was first reported in the 1950ies and have been a challenge for veterinarians ever since.A cow that is recumbent for too long may develop soft and nerve tissue lesions because of her recumbency.The pathophysiology and blood biochemistry related to downer cows have been studied by others.An important step in the treatment of a recumbent cow is to help her stand.Many inventions have been created in order achieve this.In this study flotation therapy, where buoyancy from water is used as a supportive force, as treatment was evaluated.A retrospective study of all cases that spent at least one day in the flotation tank at the Large Animal Clinic at the Facult de Mdecine Vtrinaire at Universit de Montral between the 12 th of June 2006 and the 4 th of April 2011 was conducted.The aim was to get a deeper understanding of the treatment and to identify factors that can be used to predict the outcome.The results indicate that flotation therapy for downer cows can greatly increase the recovery rate and save cases that otherwise would have a guarded prognosis.The results also indicate that infectious, musculoskeletal and nerve lesions are the most common diagnose of recumbent cows.For creatine kinase activity (CK) and aspartat aminotransferase activity (AST) there were statistically significant differences between survivors and non-survivors indicating that these muscle enzymes can be used to predict the outcome.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it