Comparing antibiotic resistance in commensal and pathogenic bacteria isolated from wild-caught South Carolina shrimps vs. farm-raised imported shrimps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess and differentiate wild-caught South Carolina (SC) shrimps from imported shrimps on the basis of microbiological analysis. Seven wild-caught SC shrimp and 13 farm-raised imported shrimp samples were analyzed. Total plate counts from wild-caught shrimp samples ranged from 4.3 to 7.0 log10 CFU/g, whereas counts from imported shrimp samples ranged from 3.2 to 5.7 log10 CFU/g. There was no difference (P > 0.05) between total bacterial counts of wild-caught SC shrimp and farm-raised imported shrimp. However, the percentages of bacteria with reduced susceptibility towards ceftriaxone and tetracycline were higher (P < 0.05) for farm-raised shrimp than for wild-caught samples. Salmonella spp. detected only in one farm-raised sample was resistant to ampicillin, ceftriaxone, gentamicin, streptomycin, and trimethoprim. Vibrio vulnificus was detected in both wild-caught and farm-raised shrimp samples; however, only the isolate from farm-raised shrimp was resistant to nalidixic acid and trimethoprim. Escherichia coli detected in one wild-caught sample was resistant to ampicillin. Both Listeria spp. and Salmonella spp. were absent with wild-caught SC samples. Therefore, the presence of more ceftriaxone- and tetracycline-resistant bacteria and the observed antimicrobial resistance phenotypes of isolates from the imported shrimp may reflect the possible use of antibiotics in raising shrimp in those countries.
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 | 0.000 | 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".