MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in the rates of field isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility of bacterial pathogens collected from fall-placed feedlot steers between arrival at the feedlot and 90 to 120 days on feed

2017· article· en· W3126199313 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathan Erickson, Musangu Ngeleka, Brian V. Lubbers, A.I. Trokhymchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bovine Practitioner · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPasteurella multocidaFeedlotBovine respiratory diseaseBiologyAntimicrobialMicrobiologyPasteurellosisPasteurellaAntibioticsBacteriaVeterinary medicineAnimal scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The change in bacterial recovery and phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility of 3 important bovine respiratory disease bacteria (Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni) between arrival and 90 to 120 days was observed in 295 healthy fall-placed feedlot calves in western Canada using deep nasal swabs. At the arrival sampling, 28%, 28%, and 9% of calves were culture positive for Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni, respectively; these rates changed to 23%, 14%, and 16%, respectively, in the post-arrival period. A decrease in antimicrobial susceptibility was observed between the arrival and post-arrival sample periods, with numerically fewer pan-susceptible isolates and little change in multi-drug resistant isolates. Between the 2 sampling periods, statistically significant decreases in susceptibility to tilmicosin and tulathromycin were observed for Mannheimia haemolytica and tildipirosin for Pasteurella multocida isolates. Results of this study suggest that changes to both the proportions of bacteria isolated and the antimicrobial susceptibility of isolates occur between arrival and ~90 days post-arrival.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Bovine PractitionerSame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207