Comparitive efficacy of five anthelmintics against trichostrongylid nematodes in sheep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of levamisole, ivermectin and three different preparations of oxfendazole, applied at the recommended rate, were evaluated in flocks of sheep kept at two farms in Thal desert, Pakistan. Sixty animals on each farm were selected randomly on the basis of their weight and egg count of more than 150 eggs per gram of faeces. Three preparations of oxfendazole (fendamex, oxazole, syatamex), levamisole and ivermectin were given to five groups while one untreated group was kept as control. Faecal egg counts, faecal egg count reduction test, postmortem worm count and copro-culture were performed to assess the efficacy of selected anthelmintics. Levamisole and ivermectin preparations reduced (P ≤ 0.05) prevalent species of gastrointestinal nematodes in both flocks. Oxfendazole preparations exhibited low efficacy and some gastrointestinal nematodes (Haemonchus and Trichostrongylus) were suspected for resistance against these preparations, with resistance more pronounced in oxazole followed by systamex and fendamex. It was concluded that all oxfendazole preparations had low efficacy with suspicion for anthelmintic resistance while levamisole and ivermectin had reasonable effectiveness against prevalent gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep kept in Thal desert, Pakistan. Key words: Anthelmintic, resistance, gastrointestinal nematodes, sheep, Pakistan
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".