MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) Farm Program: Results from Finisher Pig Surveillance

2010· article· en· W1564335929 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne Deckert, Sheryl Gow, Leigh B Rosengren, D. Léger, B.P. Avery, Danielle Daignault, Lucie Dutil, Richard J. Reid‐Smith, R. Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueZoonoses and Public Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of GuelphCegep de Saint HyacinthePublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsEpidemiological surveillanceVeterinary medicineAntibiotic resistanceBiologyMedicineMicrobiologyEpidemiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2006, the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) Farm Program was implemented in sentinel grower-finisher swine herds in Québec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Herds were visited 1-3 times annually. Faecal samples were collected from pens of close-to-market (CTM) weight (>80 kg) pigs and antimicrobial use (AMU) data were collected via questionnaires. Samples were cultured for generic Escherichia coli and Salmonella and tested for antimicrobial susceptibility. This paper describes the findings of this program between 2006 and 2008. Eighty-nine, 115 and 96 herds participated in this program in 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively. Over the 3 years, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) levels remained consistent. During this period, resistance to one or more antimicrobials was detected in 56-63% of the Salmonella spp. isolates and 84-86% of E. coli isolates. Resistance to five or more antimicrobials was detected in 13-23% of Salmonella and 12-13% of E. coli. Resistance to drugs classified as very important to human health (Category I) by the Veterinary Drug Directorate (VDD), Health Canada, was less than or equal to 1% in both organisms. AMU data were provided by 100 herds in 2007 and 95 herds in 2008. Nine herds in 2007 and five herds in 2008 reported no AMU. The most common route of antimicrobial administration (75-79% of herds) was via feed, predominantly macrolides/lincosamides (66-68% of herds). In both 2007 and 2008, the primary reasons given for macrolide/lincosamide use were disease prevention, growth promotion and treatment of enteric disease. The Category I antimicrobials, ceftiofur and virginiamycin were not used in feed or water in any herds in 2008, but virginiamycin was used in feed in two herds in 2007. Parenteral ceftiofur was used in 29 herds (29%) in 2007 and 20 herds (21%) in 2008. The reasons for ceftiofur use included treatment of lameness, respiratory disease and enteric disease.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations110
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoonoses and Public HealthSame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207