Evaluation of the efficacy of tulathromycin as a metaphylactic antimicrobial in feedlot calves.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of tulathromycin (DRAX) versus tilmicosin (MIC) or oxytetracycline (TET) as a metaphylactic antimicrobial in feedlot calves. Calves that received DRAX had significantly (P<.05) lower initial undifferentiated fever (UF) treatment and relapse rates; lower overall chronicity, overall mortality, and cause-specific mortality rates; higher average daily gains; and improved quality grades. However, calves that received DRAX also had poorer (P<.05) yield grades compared with calves that received MIC or TET and worse feed conversion compared with calves that received MIC. Net advantages in the DRAX group were 3.79CanDollars/animal and 16.96CanDollars/animal compared with the MIC and TET groups, respectively. Based on these results, DRAX is a more efficacious and cost-effective metaphylactic antimicrobial than MIC or TET in feedlot calves at ultra-high risk of developing UF. In addition, this study presents a comparison between two methods ("deads out" and "deads in") of calculating feedlot performance variables.
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".