Trends in Antimicrobial Resistance of <i>Salmonella</i> Isolated from Animals, Foods of Animal Origin, and the Environment of Animal Production in Canada, 1994-1997
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of our study was to determine the occurrence, magnitude, trends, and relationships regarding antibiotic resistance of Salmonella isolated from animals, animal food products, and the environment of animals. We examined 621 strains of 67 different serovars isolated in 1994, 721 strains of 75 different serovars isolated in 1995, 1,219 strains of 83 different serovars isolated in 1996, and 1,336 Salmonella strains of 92 different serovars isolated in 1997, for resistance to 17 antibiotics at one to three different concentrations with the agar dilution method. The overall resistance magnitude regressed from 9.2% in 1994 to 8.1% in 1997. Resistance to streptomycin (30.4% of 3,897 isolates), tetracycline (27.3%), and sulfisoxazole (23.7%) was highest. Resistance to streptomycin, tetracycline, kanamycin, and gentamicin declined during the 4-year period. Notable increases in resistance to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, and neomycin occurred during the 1994-1997 years. None of the isolates was resistant to amikacin. None of the isolates was resistant to ciprofloxacin at 1, 2, and 4 microg/ml. Salmonella bredeney isolates from turkeys showed a decreased sensitivity to ciprofloxacin and were resistant at the low level of 0.125 microg/ml, but none of these isolates was resistant at 1 microg/ml. Resistance to nalidixic acid correlated significantly with decreased sensitivity to ciprofloxacin; 122 of 127 (96%) isolates resistant to nalidixic acid at 32 microg/ml were resistant to ciprofloxacin at 0.125 microg/ml but sensitive at 1 microg/ml. Resistance to S. typhimurium to each of the seven antibiotics ampicillin, chloramphenicol, kanamycin, neomycin, streptomycin, sulfisoxazole, and tetracycline increased persistently during each of the years 1994-1997, but none of the S. typhimurium isolates showed decreased sensitivity to ciprofloxacin. Clinical isolates of Salmonella were twice as frequently resistant to the antimicrobials in the test panel than isolates obtained during surveys. Salmonella isolates from turkeys were more frequently resistant than isolates from pigs, cattle, and chickens.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".