MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Prevalence of Methicillin‐Resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> Colonization in Feedlot Cattle

2011· article· en· W1680304032 on OpenAlexafffundabout
J. Scott Weese, Sherry J. Hannon, Calvin W. Booker, Sheryl Gow, B.P. Avery, Richard J. Reid‐Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueZoonoses and Public Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Guelph
FundersBeef Cattle Research CouncilPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsFeedlotStaphylococcus aureusColonizationLivestockMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusVeterinary medicineEpidemiologyTransmission (telecommunications)BiologyMedicineMicrobiologyAnimal scienceInternal medicineBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important human pathogen and recent evidence has implicated food animals in the epidemiology of human infections in some regions. While the role of food in MRSA transmission and human health relevance are unclear, MRSA can be found in retail meat products internationally, including beef, yet there has been minimal investigation of MRSA in beef cattle. This study involved screening feedlot cattle for nasal and gastrointestinal colonization with MRSA shortly before the time of slaughter. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus was not isolated from any of 491 nasal swabs and 488 faecal samples. This finding is in contrast to studies that have isolated MRSA from retail beef in Canada, performed in the same laboratory using comparable culture techniques. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear but it demonstrates that further study of MRSA in livestock as well as slaughter, processing and retail environments is needed to elucidate the epidemiology of MRSA contamination of meat.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoonoses and Public HealthSame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207