Transmission of Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium in poultry with and without antimicrobial selective pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the effect of antimicrobial selective pressure on the transmission of antimicrobial resistant and sensitive strains of Salmonella in poultry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eight pens housed 12 broiler chicks each. Two chicks in four of the pens were inoculated with a Salm. Typhimurium strain resistant to 12 antimicrobials (including tetracycline), and two chicks in each of the four other pens were inoculated with a strain sensitive to all antimicrobials tested. Two pens inoculated with each strain were treated with chlortetracycline and two were not. Chicks were killed on day 7 and caeca were cultured for Salmonella. Experiments were performed independently twice. Chicks exposed to pen mates inoculated with the resistant strain and treated with tetracycline were 90% positive for Salmonella; whereas 60% of chicks given no antimicrobials were positive. Chicks exposed to the sensitive strain were 95% positive with tetracycline treatment and 90% positive without treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A multidrug-resistant Salm. Typhimurium strain had significantly increased transmission when chicks were treated with tetracycline. Transmission of a sensitive strain was not inhibited by antimicrobial selective pressure at recommended therapeutic dose. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This study demonstrates that antimicrobial usage may influence the transmission of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens in poultry.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".