MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121541905 · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3367

Cow-specific treatment of clinical mastitis: An economic approach

2010· article· en· W2121541905 on OpenAlexaff
W. Steeneveld, T. van Werven, Herman W. Barkema, H. Hogeveen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersStichting voor de Technische WetenschappenNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekMinisterie van Economische Zaken
KeywordsStreptococcus dysgalactiaeMastitisAntimicrobialSomatic cell countMedicineAntibioticsRegimenStreptococcus uberisLactationStaphylococcus aureusStreptococcus agalactiaeInternal medicineBiologyStreptococcusPregnancyMicrobiologyBacteriaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under Dutch circumstances, most clinical mastitis (CM) cases of cows on dairy farms are treated with a standard intramammary antimicrobial treatment. Several antimicrobial treatments are available for CM, differing in antimicrobial compound, route of application, duration, and cost. Because cow factors (e.g., parity, stage of lactation, and somatic cell count history) and the causal pathogen influence the probability of cure, cow-specific treatment of CM is often recommended. The objective of this study was to determine if cow-specific treatment of CM is economically beneficial. Using a stochastic Monte Carlo simulation model, 20,000 CM cases were simulated. These CM cases were caused by Streptococcus uberis and Streptococcus dysgalactiae (40%), Staphylococcus aureus (30%), or Escherichia coli (30%). For each simulated CM case, the consequences of using different antimicrobial treatment regimens (standard 3-d intramammary, extended 5-d intramammary, combination 3-d intramammary+systemic, combination 3-d intramammary+systemic+1-d nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and combination extended 5-d intramammary+systemic) were simulated simultaneously. Finally, total costs of the 5 antimicrobial treatment regimens were compared. Some inputs for the model were based on literature information and assumptions made by the authors were used if no information was available. Bacteriological cure for each individual cow depended on the antimicrobial treatment regimen, the causal pathogen, and the cow factors parity, stage of lactation, somatic cell count history, CM history, and whether the cow was systemically ill. Total costs for each case depended on treatment costs for the initial CM case (including costs for antibiotics, milk withdrawal, and labor), treatment costs for follow-up CM cases, costs for milk production losses, and costs for culling. Average total costs for CM using the 5 treatments were (US) $224, $247, $253, $260, and $275, respectively. Average probabilities of bacteriological cure for the 5 treatments were 0.53, 0.65, 0.65, 0.68, and 0.75, respectively. For all different simulated CM cases, the standard 3-d intramammary antimicrobial treatment had the lowest total costs. The benefits of lower costs for milk production losses and culling for cases treated with the intensive treatments did not outweigh the higher treatment costs. The stochastic model was developed using information from the literature and assumptions made by the authors. Using these information sources resulted in a difference in effectiveness of different antimicrobial treatments for CM. Based on our assumptions, cow-specific treatment of CM was not economically beneficial.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations86
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207