MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Interventions associated with feeding management practices and feed characteristics, and measures of Salmonella prevalence in live and slaughtered swine: A systematic review and summation of evidence

2007· review· en· W170653189 on OpenAlexaff
Annette M. O’Connor, Thomas Denagamage, Jan M. Sargeant, Andrijana Rajić, James D. McKean

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on the Epidemiology and Control of Biological, Chemical and Physical Hazards in Pigs and Pork · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSystematic reviewSalmonellaEnvironmental healthMedicineBiologyMEDLINENursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this review is to evaluate and summarize the evidence for associations between feeding management practices and feed characteristics, and Salmonella prevalence in swine, which may represent opportunities for interventions. Salmonella prevalence in the reviewed literature was measured either by culture or by the presence of antibodies. A systematic review of the area was conducted, the goal being to minimize the impact of bias. Systematic reviews include an assessment of the quality of studies and exclusion of studies that fail to meet standards for published material. The review evaluated evidence for an association between feed withdrawal from swine prior to slaughter, acidification of feed, heat treatment of feed, pellet vs. mash, course vs fine grind, and wet vs. dry. A large number of intervention studies were excluded from the review because they failed to report design features designed to limit the introduction of bias such as randomization and blinding. The majority of studies included were cross sectional studies, however these failed to provide strong evidence of an association because of the potential for confounding and the failure to document a temporal association between exposure to the risk factor and the outcome. The review concluded that title strongest body of work was available for pelleted feed and dry feed, however there was still uncertainty about the situations were this association may be effective. The conclusion was that there should be a low level of comfort among qualified scientists that the claimed association/relationship is scientifically valid. This ranking is primarily based on moderate to low quality studies, or insufficient numbers of tested individuals or herds, resulting in a low degree of confidence that results could be extrapolated to the target population.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.097 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on the Epidemiology and Control of Biological, Chemical and Physical Hazards in Pigs and Pork→Same topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology→French-language works237,207→