Antimicrobial Resistance of <i>Campylobacter</i> in Broiler Chicken Along the Food Chain in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major public health threat worldwide. The main objective of this study was to compare AMR in Campylobacter from broiler chickens raised on Canadian farms and their products in different geographical regions of Canada. To do this, antimicrobial susceptibility results from isolates of Campylobacter recovered from a national microbiological baseline study conducted in federally registered establishments and in the retail marketplace were analyzed. Among 1460 isolates tested, 774 (53%) were resistant to at least one antimicrobial, with a predominance of three profiles: tetracycline (39%), quinolone–tetracycline (6.6%), and quinolones only (3.5%). The results showed no significant difference in the frequency of resistant profiles ( p ≥ 0.05) among the isolates originating from different points in the food processing chain at slaughterhouses and in retail establishments. This suggests that AMR observed in Campylobacter isolates from raw chicken at retail originated further upstream in the system. A difference in the frequency of certain resistance profiles was observed between the regions of Canada. For instance, in British Columbia, there was more resistance to quinolones, while in Ontario and Quebec, Campylobacter isolates were more resistant to tetracyclines, macrolides, ketolides, and lincosamides. Comparison of AMR data from this study with those from the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) did not show any significant difference and provides evidence that CIPARS produces nationally representative resistance results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".