Antimicrobial Drug Use and Antimicrobial Resistance in Enteric Bacteria Among Cattle from Alberta Feedlots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in foodborne pathogens (Escherichia coli O157, Salmonella, and Campylobacter) and non-type-specific E. coli obtained from fecal samples of feedlot cattle was associated with antimicrobial drug (AMD) use. A secondary objective was to determine if AMR in non-type-specific E. coli could be used as a predictor of AMR in foodborne pathogens. Fecal samples were collected from pen floors in 21 Alberta feedlots during March through December 2004, and resistance prevalence was estimated by season (Spring, Fall) and cattle type (fewest days-on-feed and closest to slaughter). AMD exposures were obtained by calculating therapeutic animal daily doses for each drug before sampling from feedlot records. Generalized linear mixed models were used to investigate the relationship between each AMR and AMD use. Non-type-specific E. coli was commonly recovered from fecal samples (88.62%), and the highest prevalence of resistance was found toward tetracycline (53%), streptomycin (28%), and sulfadiazine (48%). Campylobacter jejuni was recovered from 55.3% of the fecal samples, and resistance was generally less for the drugs that were evaluated (doxycycline 38.1%, ciprofloxacin 2.6%, nalidixic acid 1.64%, erythromycin 1.2%). E. coli O157 and Salmonella were recovered much less frequently (7% and 1% prevalence, respectively). The prevalence of recovery for the bacteria studied varied between seasons and cattle types, as did patterns of AMR. Among non-type-specific E. coli, resistance to tetracycline, streptomycin, and sulfadiazine was found to be positively associated with in-feed exposure as well as injectable tetracycline, but these differences were relatively small and of questionable practical relevance. Among C. jejuni isolates, cattle type was significantly associated with doxycycline resistance. Results suggested that resistance in non-type-specific E. coli to chloramphenicol, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and tetracycline might be used as predictors of resistance to these drugs in E. coli O157 recovered from the same fecal samples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".