MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514498130 · doi:10.54846/jshap/898

Depletion of bromadiolone in tissues of hogs following oral exposure

2015· article· en· W2514498130 on OpenAlexafffund
Saad Enouri, Kristina Dekroon, Robert Friendship, Nick Schrier, Patricia M. Dowling, Ron Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Swine Health and Production · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Food and Agriculture
KeywordsVeterinary medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To assess bromadiolone depletion in the edible tissues of swine and propose post-exposure withdrawal periods. Materials and methods: Two groups of barrows and two groups of gilts were given a single oral dose of bromadiolone: low dosage (LD, 0.05 mg/kg; n = 20; 10 males, 10 females) and high dose (HD, 0.5 mg/kg; n = 20; 10 males, 10 females). Coagulation parameters were assessed before and after administration. Animals were sacrificed at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 weeks (LD) and 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 weeks (HD) post dosing. Loin muscle, skin-adherent fat, liver, feces, and blood were analyzed for bromadiolone using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Results: Partial thromboplastin times exceeded control values in the LD and HD groups 6 and 9 weeks post dosing, respectively. In the HD group, bromadiolone concentrations exceeded the limit of detection (LOD) at all time points in liver and skin-adherent fat and for up to 6 weeks in feces, muscle, and plasma. In the LD group, bromadiolone concentrations exceeded the LOD at all time points in liver and up to 3 weeks in fat, feces, and plasma. Estimated withdrawal periods for bromadiolone in liver were 83 and 176 weeks in the LD and HD groups, respectively, and 62 weeks in muscle in the HD group. Implication: Bromadiolone residues persist in tissues such that it is impractical to wait for the hog to eliminate the rodenticide to a concentration that is safe for entry into the human food chain.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Swine Health and ProductionSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207