MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Association between Sub‐Therapeutic Antibiotics and<i>Salmonella</i>Typhimurium in Market‐Weight Swine: A Systematic Review and Summation of Evidence from 1950 to 2007

2010· review· en· W1562926306 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Denagamage, Annette M. O’Connor, Jan M. Sargeant, James D. McKean

Bibliographic record

VenueZoonoses and Public Health · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlindingSalmonellaAntibioticsRegimenMedicineSystematic reviewMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineMEDLINEBiologyClinical trialInternal medicineMicrobiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic review approach was used to evaluate the association between sub-therapeutic antibiotics in feed and Salmonella Typhimurium isolation in market-weight finisher swine raised in modern swine production systems. Fourteen challenge trials described the efficacy of different antibiotics after challenge with S. Typhimurium. The studies identified were of limited evidentiary value for the review question because they were not relevant to the review question, i.e. conducted in artificial settings on small numbers of young pigs. None of the studies reported using blinding during outcome assessment. No antibiotic regimen was evaluated more than once. The association between sub-therapeutic antibiotics and Salmonella outcomes in market-weight swine raised in modern production systems cannot be summarized using the currently available literature. Many available studies fail to report critical study design features such as blinding and/or to take into account the data generated from longitudinal studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoonoses and Public HealthSame topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsFrench-language works237,207