Efficacy of Vaccination to Reduce <i>Salmonella</i> Prevalence in Live and Slaughtered Swine: A Systematic Review of Literature from 1979 to 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of vaccination to reduce Salmonella prevalence in market weight finisher swine. A search of online databases and selected conference proceedings was conducted to identify relevant studies. The review process followed relevance screening, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction. Although multiple outcomes were frequently reported, only outcomes describing culture of Salmonella were extracted. Five clinical trials and 23 challenge studies were considered likely relevant to the review as they described vaccination to reduce Salmonella in swine. Five clinical trials reported vaccination was associated with reduced isolation of Salmonella in market weight pigs, however, information required to assess the internal validity of the study was often not described in the manuscripts. All challenge studies assessed vaccine efficacy in pigs aged <15 weeks reducing the relevance of results to the review which focused on market weight pigs. Only five of the 23 challenge studies reported the majority of information necessary to evaluate the quality of vaccine studies. Given large variability in population type, sample size, type of vaccine, dose and dosing regimens, and type of outcomes observed, pooled data analysis was not possible, and therefore, a qualitative synthesis of the studies was conducted. Available evidence suggests that vaccination is associated with reduced Salmonella prevalence in swine at or near harvest; however, this conclusion is based on studies with design and reporting deficiencies that could potentially indicate biases with the outcome.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".