Comparison of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and porcine circovirus 2 commercial vaccines efficacy when applied separate or combined under experimental conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: (PCV-2) are two of the most significant infectious agents causing economic losses in the weaning to slaughter period. Due to their similar vaccination age, the objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of two already existing Mhyo (Hyogen®) and PCV-2 (Circovac®) vaccines when administered separately or combined (RTM) by means of Mhyo or PCV-2 experimental challenges. RESULTS: Seven groups of animals were included in the study, being three of them challenged with PCV-2, three with Mhyo and one composed of non-challenged, non-vaccinated pigs. Within each experimental challenge, non-vaccinated (NV) groups were compared with double vaccinated groups using the commercial products separated (VS) or combined (VC). Both vaccinated groups showed significant differences for most parameters measured regarding PCV-2 (serology, percentage of infected animals and viral load in tissues) and Mhyo (serology and gross lesions) when compared to NV groups. VS and VC offered similar results, being only significantly different the PCV-2 antibody values at different time points (higher in the VS group) of the study, although not at the termination day (21 days post-PCV-2 inoculation). CONCLUSION: The present study expands the knowledge on the possibility of using two separate Mhyo and PCV-2 commercial vaccines as a RTM product, which offered equivalent virological, immunological and pathological outcomes as compared to these vaccines when used by separate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".