MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964967268 · doi:10.1111/zph.12637

<i>Clostridioides difficile</i> on Ohio swine farms (2015): A comparison of swine and human environments and assessment of on‐farm risk factors

2019· article· en· W2964967268 on OpenAlexaff
Rory A. O’Shaughnessy, Gregory Habing, Wondwossen A. Gebreyes, Andrew S. Bowman, J. Scott Weese, Joyce D. Rousseau, Jason W. Stull

Bibliographic record

VenueZoonoses and Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridioidesClostridium difficileVeterinary medicineBiologyFecesTransmission (telecommunications)Clostridium difficile toxin AMicrobiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Swine are known reservoirs for Clostridioides difficile, formerly known as Clostridium difficile, and transmission from swine to human farm workers is strongly suggested by previous studies. This cross-sectional study evaluated the potential role of farm environmental surfaces, including those in worker breakrooms and swine housing areas, in the possible transmission of C. difficile from swine to farm workers. Environmental surfaces and piglet faeces at 13 Ohio swine farms were sampled in 2015. Typical culturing techniques were performed to isolate C. difficile from samples, and amplification of toxin genes (tcdA, tcdB and cdtB) and PCR-ribotyping were used to genetically characterize recovered isolates. In addition, sequencing of toxin regulatory gene, tcdC, was done to identify the length of identified deletions in some isolates. A survey collected farm-level management risk factor information. Clostridioides difficile was recovered from all farms, with 42% (188/445) of samples testing positive for C. difficile. Samples collected from all on-farm locations recovered C. difficile, including farrowing rooms (60%, 107/178), breakrooms (50%, 69/138) and nursery rooms (9%, 12/129). Three ribotypes recovered from both swine and human environments (078, 412 and 005) have been previously implicated in human disease. Samples taken from farrowing rooms and breakrooms were found to have greater odds of C. difficile recovery than those taken from nursery rooms (OR = 40.5, OR = 35.6, p < .001 respectively). Farms that weaned ≥23,500 pigs per year had lower odds of C. difficile recovery as compared to farms that weaned fewer pigs (OR = 0.4, p = .01) and weekly or more frequent cleaning of breakroom counters was associated with higher odds of C. difficile recovery (OR = 11.7, p < .001). This study provides important insights into the presence and characterization of C. difficile found in human environments on swine farms and highlights how these areas may be involved in transmission of C. difficile to swine farm workers and throughout the facility.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoonoses and Public HealthSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207