Comparative efficacy of tilmicosin, florfenicol, and fiorfenicol-flunixin meglumine for treatment of undifferentiated fever in backgrounded winter-placed feedlot calves given tilmicosin metaphylactically on arrival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted in 3 feedlots to compare the clinical efficacy of tilmicosin to florfenicol and florfenicol-nunixin meglumine for the initial treatment of undifferentiated fever (UF) in backgrounded winter-placed feedlot calves treated metaphylactically with tilmicosin at arrival processing. No significant differences (P>0.05) were found in UF relapse rates, crude case fatality rates, bovine respiratory disease and histophilus fatality rates, or average daily gain between the 3 groups. The cost benefit of tilmicosin versus florfenicol and florfenicol-flunixin meglumine was based on the difference in treatment cost between the 3 drugs. Using current market prices and a treatment weight of 828 lb (376 kg), the cost of treatment with tilmicosin was $15.85 CAN less per head compared to treatment with florfenicol, and $15.90 CAN per head less than florfenicol-flunixin meglumine.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".