A ten-year (2000–2009) study of antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria that cause bovine respiratory disease complex— <i>Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida</i> , and <i>Histophilus somni</i> —in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bovine isolates of Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni, collected from 2000 to 2009, were tested for in vitro susceptibility to ceftiofur, penicillin, danofloxacin, enrofloxacin, florfenicol, tetracycline, tilmicosin, and tulathromycin. Ceftiofur remained very active against all isolates. Penicillin retained good activity against P. multocida and H. somni isolates with no appreciable changes in susceptibility or minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) distributions with time. While there was no obvious trend, the percent of M. haemolytica that were susceptible to penicillin ranged from 40.9% to 66.7%. Danofloxacin MIC(50) and MIC(90) values for M. haemolytica and P. multocida did not change beyond a single dilution over the 6 years it was included in the testing panel. The MIC(90) for H. somni increased beyond 1 dilution. Enrofloxacin MIC(50) values for the 3 pathogens also did not change over time, unlike the MIC(90) values, which increased by at least 4-doubling dilutions. Ninety percent or more of M. haemolytica and H. somni isolates were susceptible to florfenicol, while susceptibility among P. multocida was 79% or greater. Less than 50% of the isolates tested as susceptible to tetracycline in many of the years. All 3 organisms showed declines in tilmicosin and tulathromycin MIC(50) and MIC(90) values over the years in which they were tested.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".