Pre‐harvest Interventions to Reduce the Shedding of<i>E. coli</i>O157 in the Faeces of Weaned Domestic Ruminants: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to use formal systematic review methods to evaluate the efficacy of interventions to reduce faecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157 in post-weaned ruminants by increasing animal resistance. The methodology consisted of an extensive search to identify all potentially relevant research, screening of titles and abstracts for relevance to the research question, quality assessment of relevant research, extraction of data from research of sufficient quality, and qualitative summarization of results. The interventions evaluated included probiotics, vaccination, antimicrobials, sodium chlorate, bacteriophages and other feed additives. There was evidence of efficacy for the probiotic combination Lactobacillus acidophilus NP51 (NPC 747) and Propionibacterium freudenreichii and for sodium chlorate in feed or water. The effectiveness of vaccination varied among studies and among vaccine protocols and there was no consistent evidence to suggest that antibiotic use was associated with a decrease in faecal shedding of E. coli O157, or that current industry uses of antimicrobials were associated with increased faecal shedding. There were an insufficient number of studies available to address the effectiveness of bacteriophages and several other feed additives. In general, few of the primary studies evaluated the interventions under commercial housing conditions with a natural disease challenge, there were inconsistencies in the results among study designs and in some cases among studies within study designs, and a relatively large proportion of publications were excluded based on quality assessment criteria. Few studies reported on associations between the proposed intervention and production parameters, such as average daily gain and feed: gain ratio. While the results suggest that some interventions may be efficacious, there are knowledge gaps in our understanding of the efficacy of pre-harvest interventions to increase animal resistance to E. coli O157 that require further targeted research.
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 | 0.020 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".