The Efficacy of Intramammary Tilmicosin at Drying-off, and other Risk Factors for the Prevention of New Intramammary Infections during the Dry Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of an intramammary infusion, containing tilmicosin phosphate, to an infusion of a negative control intramammary placebo for preventing new intramammary infections (IMI) during the dry period. Cows were enrolled from 24 dairy herds from three geographical regions of Canada. Data from 248 cows and 938 bacteriologically negative quarters at drying-off are summarized. Overall, the rate of new IMI during the dry period was 16.7% of quarters. The new infection rates for quarters that received intramammary tilmicosin compared with the intramammary placebo were 14.4 and 19.4%, respectively. The majority of new IMI was caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci (49%) and environmental streptococcal organisms (26.8%). The probability for quarters to develop new IMI in the dry period was significantly increased when cows had higher milk production before drying-off (P = 0.04), when cows had longer dry periods (P = 0.02), and when dry cows were housed in tie-stall barns (P = 0.002). Higher parity cows and those that had a linear score somatic cell count (SCC) above 4 on the last DHI test were also at increased risk for new IMI (P < 0.10). Administration of intramammary tilmicosin appears to be an efficacious therapy for prevention of new IMI; however, there is currently no approved intramammary formulation of this product available. Use of blanket dry cow antibiotic therapy compared to selective dry cow therapy, as well as the importance of identifying risk factors and managing the environment of dry cows 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".