Informing Stewardship Measures in Canadian Food Animal Species through Integrated Reporting of Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Data—Part I, Methodology Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores methodologies for the data integration of antimicrobial use (AMU) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) results within and across three food animal species, surveyed at the farm-level by the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS). The approach builds upon existing CIPARS methodology and principles from other AMU and AMR surveillance systems. Species level data integration involved: (1) standard CIPARS descriptive and temporal analysis of AMU/AMR, (2) synthesis of results, (3) selection of AMU and AMR outcomes for integration, (4) selection of candidate AMU indicators to enable comparisons of AMU levels between species and simultaneous assessment of AMU and AMR trends, (5) exploration of analytic options for studying associations between AMU and AMR, and (6) interpretation and visualization. The multi-species integration was also completed using the above approach. In addition, summarized reporting of internationally-recognized indicators of AMR (i.e., AMR adjusted for animal biomass) and AMU (mg/population correction unit, mg/kg animal biomass) is explored. It is envisaged that this approach for species and multi-species AMU-AMR data integration will be applied to the annual CIPARS farm-level data and progressively developed over time to inform AMU-AMR integrated surveillance best practices for further enhancement of AMU stewardship actions.
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 | 0.115 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".