Efficacy of halofuginone lactate in the prevention of cryptosporidiosis in suckling calves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of halofuginone lactate in the prevention of cryptosporidiosis in suckling calves was evaluated in a multicentre, control versus placebo, randomised, double-blind clinical trial. Seventy-eight six- to 48-hour-old calves were treated daily with 120 microg/kg bodyweight of halofuginone lactate administered orally for seven consecutive days, while 80 calves received a placebo. Faecal samples were collected on the first day of dosing and four, seven, 14 and 21 days later, and Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts were counted and faecal indices for diarrhoea were determined after a clinical examination. An analysis of variance for repeated measurements showed a highly significant difference in favour of halofuginone lactate for both the oocyst counts (P=0.0002) and the faecal diarrhoea indices (P=0.0001) throughout the trial. The difference was greatest after seven days, when the mean oocyst count of the placebo group was 2.5 times and its mean faecal index was twice the mean of the halofuginone lactate group. One day after the end of the treatment the calves which received halofuginone lactate excreted 44 per cent fewer C parvum oocysts and 44 per cent fewer of them had diarrhoea. The reduction was even greater (65 per cent) when liquid diarrhoea was assessed, with 32.5 per cent of the calves in the placebo group having liquid diarrhoea compared with 11.5 per cent in the halofuginone lactate group. The treatment was well tolerated and easily administered.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".