Antimicrobial Resistance in <i>Campylobacter</i> spp. Isolated from Ontario Sheep Flocks and Associations between Antimicrobial use and Antimicrobial Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in faecal Campylobacter spp. from lambs and adult sheep and associations between antimicrobial use (AMU) and AMR. A total of 275 faecal samples collected during initial and final visits from 51 sheep flocks, including one feedlot, across southern Ontario were tested for the presence of Campylobacter spp. Campylobacter jejuni was detected in 52% (143/275) of the faecal samples, Campylobacter coli in 7% (19/275), Campylobacter lari in 1% (2/275) and 2% (4/275) were non-speciated Campylobacter. Broth microdilution was used to test antimicrobial susceptibility of 162 isolates to nine antimicrobials. Campylobacter jejuni isolates (n = 142) were resistant to tetracycline (39%), ciprofloxacin (4%), nalidixic acid (4%) and telithromycin (1%). C. coli isolates (n = 19) were resistant to tetracycline (74%), and azithromycin, clindamycin, erythromycin, and telithromycin (5%). The C. lari isolate displayed resistance to nalidixic acid. No statistically significant associations were found between AMU and AMR during multivariate modelling in this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".