MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007178669 · doi:10.1017/s1466252319000240

Editorial: Systematic reviews reveal a need for more, better data to inform antimicrobial stewardship practices in animal agriculture

2019· editorial· en· W3007178669 on OpenAlexaff
Jan M. Sargeant, Annette M. O’Connor, Charlotte B. Winder

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Health Research Reviews · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntimicrobial stewardshipSystematic reviewPsychological interventionAgricultureMeta-analysisAntimicrobialStewardship (theology)MedicineAnimal healthMEDLINEBiotechnologyIntensive care medicineVeterinary medicineBiologyPolitical scienceAntibiotic resistanceAntibioticsPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This editorial summarizes the key observations from a special issue of Animal Health Research Reviews comprising 14 articles related to the efficacy of antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial approaches to reduce disease in beef, dairy cattle, swine, and broiler chickens. The articles used evidence-based methods, including scoping reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses. Despite finding evidence of efficacy for some of the interventions examined, across the body of research, there was a lack of replication and inconsistency in outcomes among the included trials, and concerns related to completeness of reporting and trial design and execution. There is an urgent need for more and better data to inform antimicrobial stewardship practices in animal agriculture.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.094 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Health Research ReviewsSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207