Field evaluation of efficacy and tolerance of a 2% marbofloxacin injectable solution for the treatment of respiratory disease in fattening pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a controlled and randomized field trial carried out in three European countries, 219 fattening pigs, from seven farms with respiratory disease problems, were treated intramuscularly for three or five days either with marbofloxacin 2 mg/kg/day, or with amoxicillin 7 mg/kg/day. Pigs were monitored daily until D5 (Day 5) and again at D21, and were weighed at D0 and D21. Pasteurella multocida, Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae were mainly identified in the pig lungs. The difference in the cure rate (74.5% in marbofloxacin group versus 68% in the amoxicillin group) was not significant. Mean rectal temperature was significantly lower after treatment with marbofloxacin. Other criteria tended to be favourable for the marbofloxacin group, although differences were not significant. The time to cure tended to be shorter for the marbofloxacin group (24.3% of pigs at 24 hours post-treatment versus 12.1% in the amoxicillin group). Marbofloxacin and amoxicillin relapse rates were 11.9% and 17.2% respectively (not significant) and daily weight gain was 746 g in the marbofloxacin group versus 687 g in the amoxicillin group (not significant). The 2% marbofloxacin solution was significantly better tolerated than amoxicillin.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".