Comparative efficacy of ceftiofur crystalline free acid and florfenicol-flunixin meglumine for undifferentiated fever treatment in feedlot calves administered tulathromycin metaphylactically on arrival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field study was conducted at commercial feedlots to compare the relative efficacy of ceftiofur crystalline free acid (CCFA) and florfenicol-flunixin meglumine (FFM) for undifferentiated fever (UF) treatment in calves that were administered tulathromycin metaphylactically on arrival. At the time of initial diagnosis of UF, experimental calves (n=1,056) were randomly allocated to 2 experimental groups, CCFA and FFM. Calves in the CCFA group (n=530) were administered 3.0 mg/lb (6.6 mg/kg) BW of ceftiofur crystalline free acid subcutaneously (SC) at the base of the ear. Calves in the FFM group (n=526) were administered a combination of 18.1 mg/lb (40.0 mg/kg) florfenicol+1.0 mg/lb (2.2 mg/kg) flunixin meglumine SC in the neck region. The first UF relapse treatment rate was lower in the CCFA group compared to the FFM group (P=0.011). The third UF relapse treatment rate was also reduced in the CCFA group (P=0.032), but no difference was detected in the second UF relapse treatment rate between the 2 groups. No differences in overall chronicity, wastage, salvage slaughter, or mortality rates were detected between the 2 groups at the P?0.05 level. There was a net economic advantage of $10.35/treated animal in the CCFA group, driven primarily by the lower initial UF treatment cost when compared to the FFM group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".