Restrictions of anthelmintic usage: perspectives and potential consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the increasing levels of anthelmintic resistance in equine parasites, parasitologists now recommend traditional treatment approaches to be abandoned and replaced by more sustainable strategies. It is of crucial importance to facilitate veterinary involvement to ensure that treatment decisions are based on parasitic knowledge. Despite recommendations given for the past two decades, strategies based on the selective therapy principle have not yet been implemented on a larger scale in equine establishments. In contrast, treatment regimens appear to be derived from recommendations originally given in 1966. The province of Quebec in Canada, and an increasing number of European countries, have implemented prescription-only restrictions on anthelmintic drugs. Denmark introduced this legislation ten years ago, and some evidence has been generated describing potential consequences. It is without dispute that Danish veterinarians are now deeply involved with parasite management in equine establishments. However, little is known about the impact on levels of anthelmintic resistance and the risk of parasitic disease under these circumstances. In addition, the legislation makes huge demands on diagnosis and parasite surveillance. No data have been published evaluating fecal egg count techniques and larval culture methods as clinical diagnostic tools, and very little is known about potential correlations with actual worm burdens. This article provides a general review of anthelmintic strategies currently used in equine establishments and outlines the recommendations now given for parasite control. Preliminary experience with prescription-only restrictions in Denmark is presented and current research needs to further evaluate this approach are discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".