MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is moving from targeted culling to BCG-vaccination of badgers (Meles meles) associated with an unacceptable increased incidence of cattle herd tuberculosis in the Republic of Ireland? A practical non-inferiority wildlife intervention study in the Republic of Ireland (2011-2017)

2020· article· en· W3016313221 on OpenAlexaff
S.W. Martin, James O’Keeffe, Andrew W. Byrne, L. Rosen, Paul W. White, Guy McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Veterinary Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersDepartment of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Ireland
KeywordsBadgerCullingMelesHerdMycobacterium bovisVeterinary medicineVaccinationIncidence (geometry)WildlifeBovine tuberculosisTuberculosisDemographyMedicineBiologyEcologyVirologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bovine tuberculosis (BTB) remains as a costly disease of cattle-herds in the Republic of Ireland (ROI). This persistence is partially attributable to the presence of M. bovis infection in a wildlife reservoir, the European badger (Meles meles). Thus, both area-wide and limited-area targeted-badger-culling have been part of the ROI-BTB control/eradication program to help reduce the future incidence of a cattle-herd BTB breakdown (i.e. a "new herd-level occurrence of BTB"). However, neither badger-culling practice can be sustained as a major component in the ongoing BTB eradication program in the ROI. Vaccination of badgers with Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) has been proposed as an alternative to badger culling. Thus, in 2011, a five-year non-inferiority study was implemented in seven counties in the ROI. This study was designed to compare and contrast the cattle-herd-BTB-incidence in areas where intramuscular badger vaccination would be implemented versus the cattle-herd-BTB-incidence in the remaining area of the same county where targeted-badger-culling was maintained as the standard treatment response to probable badger-sourced BTB breakdowns. Our outcome of interest was a new cattle-herd-BTB-episode (breakdown) with a total of >2 standard skin-test (SICTT) reactors detected during the episode. Treatments (badger vaccination or targeted badger culling) were cluster allocated based on where the majority of the herd owner's land was located. To assess the impact of the two treatments, we compared the incidence-risk, of our defined outcome, for cattle herds in the area under vaccination to the outcome incidence-risk for cattle herds in the remainder of the same county after 4 and 5 years of having implemented badger vaccination. A random-effects logit model with adjustment for clustering by treatment, and statistical control of herd-type, herd-size and five-year prior-BTB-episode history was used for our analyses. Although not included in the logistic model, a relative badger density metric based on the annual number of badgers captured-per-sett-night of capturing effort was developed for each treatment area; this metric indicated that relative badger density was approximately 40 % higher in vaccination areas than in the targeted badger-culling areas during our study. Overall, our study results indicated that vaccination was not inferior to targeted badger-culling in four counties and badger vaccination was deemed to produce ambivalent results in one (County Cork North) of the seven study sites in the ROI. A post-study investigation, in County Galway, where vaccination was deemed inferior to target culling, revealed that widespread purchases of cattle from a nearby cattle mart, by herd owners in the vaccination-area, was associated with the increased herd and vaccination-area risk of BTB. No single "biasing hypothesis" was evident for the apparent vaccine inferiority in the second study site (County Monaghan) where vaccination was deemed inferior to targeted culling; hence no further investigations were conducted.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive Veterinary MedicineSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207