Experimental Escherichia coli Respiratory Infection in Broilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study determined optimal conditions for experimental reproduction of colibacillosis by aerosol administration of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli to 2-to-4-wk-old broiler chickens. The basic model for reproducing disease was intranasal administration of approximately 10(4) mean embryo infectious dose of infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) followed by aerosol administration of an 02 or an 078 strain of E. coli in a Horsfall unit (100 ml of a suspension of 10(9) colony-forming units/ml over 40 min). Scores were assigned to groups of infected chickens on the basis of deaths; frequency and severity of lesions in the air sacs, liver and heart; and recovery of the challenge E. coli 6 days post-E. coli infection. An interval of 4 days between the IBV and E. coli challenges was best whether the chickens received the IBV at 8 or 20 days of age. Typically, 50%-80% of the chickens developed airsacculitis and 0 to 29% of the chickens developed pericarditis or perihepatitis, with little or no mortality. Escherichia coli alone resulted in no deaths and 0 to 20% airsacculitis, but these percentages increased to 0 to 5% and 52%-60% when the E. coli aerosol was administered through a cone-shaped chamber. Administration of IBV alone failed to induce lesions. Recovery of the challenge E. coli from chickens did not correlate well with lesions. On the basis of these data, administration of IBV to 20-day-old chickens followed 4 days later by exposure to an avian pathogenic E. coli reproduces avian colibacillosis with the low mortality, high percentage of airsacculitis, and low percentage of septicemic lesions characteristic of the conditions seen in the natural disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".