MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of the Risks of Shedding <i>Salmonellae</i> and Other Potential Pathogens by Therapy Dogs Fed Raw Diets in Ontario and Alberta

2008· article· en· W2115671529 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra L. Lefebvre, Richard J. Reid‐Smith, Patrick Boerlin, J. Scott Weese

Bibliographic record

VenueZoonoses and Public Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmonellaRaw meatVeterinary medicineFecesIncidence (geometry)MedicineBiologyFood scienceMicrobiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dogs that participate in animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), often called 'therapy dogs', commonly interact with humans whose immune systems are not functioning optimally. The advisability of feeding raw meat (including poultry) to these animals remains a highly contentious issue, in spite of increasing evidence that raw meat is frequently contaminated with Salmonella. We set out to determine if consuming raw meat influences the risk of therapy dogs shedding Salmonella and other pathogens. Two hundred healthy therapy dogs from Ontario and Alberta were enrolled. Between May 2005 and November 2006, fecal specimens were collected from each dog every 2 months for 1 year, along with a log of places visited, antimicrobial use within the home, dog health status and diet. Specimens were cultured for Salmonella, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), extended-spectrum cephalosporinase (ESC) Escherichia coli and Clostridium difficile. Forty (20%) of the dogs were reported to have been fed raw meat at some point during the year. The incidence rate of Salmonella shedding in the raw meat-fed dogs was 0.61 cases/dog-year, compared with 0.08 cases/dog-year in dogs that were not fed raw meat (P<0.001). Controlling for therapy dog group, the repeated measures, and pig ear consumption and diarrhoea in the 2 months prior to specimen submission, dogs that consumed raw meat were significantly more likely to test positive for Salmonella at least once during the year than dogs that did not eat raw meat [odds ratio (OR) 22.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-58.8; P<0.001]. Specific Salmonella serovars were more common among dogs that consumed raw meat versus those that did not include S. Typhimurium, S. Heidelberg and S. Kentucky. Raw meat consumption was also significantly associated with shedding ESC E. coli (OR 17.2; 95% CI 9.4-32.3). No associations between C. difficile, MRSA or VRE and consumption of raw meat were detected. We recommend that dogs fed raw meat should be excluded from AAI programmes, particularly when the programmes involve interaction with humans at high risk of infection or adverse sequelae attributable to infection. Furthermore, although AAI dogs may not be representative of the general population of dogs, we also recommend that feeding of raw meat to dogs is to be avoided in homes where immunocompromised people live.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations155
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoonoses and Public HealthSame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207