Efficacy of phage therapy in pigs: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limits on the use and efficacy of various antibiotics coupled with negative consumer perception of the practice have together spurred substantial research into compounds that could reduce the use antibiotics to control bacterial diseases in pigs. Bacteriophages are often among such potential compounds, and various groups have examined the efficacy of bacteriophages or bacteriophage products in limiting transmission or colonization of targeted bacteria. The study presented here provides a systematic review of such studies followed by a meta-analysis of aggregated data produced by each study. The data set was limited to inputs (n = 19; 576 total observations) from studies where: 1) live pigs were inoculated with a known quantity of challenge bacteria; 2) challenged animals were treated with a known quantity of phages; 3) concentrations of the challenge bacteria were measured in different tissues/fluids following phage treatment; and 4) SD (or SE to allow calculation of SD) was reported. Concentrations of challenge bacteria were significantly lower in phage-treated pigs versus challenged but untreated pigs (P < 0.0001; effect size = -1.06 1log10 colony-forming units [CFU]/g). The effect size of phage treatment was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in samples collected 48 to 96 h following phage treatment versus those collected ≤ 24 h following phage treatment. Likewise, effect size of phage treatment was significantly greater in piglets versus market-weight pigs. Across observations, phage treatment effect sizes were greatest (P < 0.01) in fecal samples versus ileal or cecal samples. Taken together, these data indicate that phage treatment can significantly reduce the concentrations of targeted bacteria in pigs; scenarios exist, however, where phage treatment could predictably be more or less effective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".