MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W417450217

Epidemiology of toe tip necrosis syndrome in western Canadian feedlot cattle

2014· article· en· W417450217 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chad Paetsch

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library - University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyFeedlotAfrican swine feverNecrosisMedicineBiologyAnimal sciencePathologyVirology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lameness continues to cause significant problems in profitability, productivity, and animal welfare in the feedlot industry. Toe tip necrosis syndrome (TTNS) is a new name for a previously reported condition. By definition, TTNS is separation of the apical white line with tissue necrosis and clinical lameness. This definition includes complications such as pedal (P3) osteitis, middle (P2) and proximal (P1) phalangeal osteomyelitis, tendonitis, tenosynovitis, cellulitis, and embolic pneumonia. Anecdotal experiences from practitioners report this lameness in feedlot cattle will develop within weeks after feedlot entry. Often the hindlimbs, specifically the lateral claw, are affected where a separation of the dorsal wall and sole will be noticed. Secondary infections will progress deeper into the foot and become systemic. Unfortunately, despite treatment, these animals can become very lame and will need to be euthanized. The overall objective of this project was to describe the epidemiology of TTNS in western Canadian feedlot cattle. The specific objectives were 1) to use clinical examinations, imaging modalities, and necropsy findings to aid in description, classification, and characterization of TTNS lesions, 2) to describe the epidemiology of TTNS in feedlot cattle, and 3) to evaluate risk factors for TTNS. Upon further investigation into this arrival related condition it became apparent that there were many different descriptors: P3 necrosis, toe abscess, apicus necrotica, apical pedal bone necrosis or toe necrosis. These names and descriptors of toe tip lesions were based on anecdotal experiences and previous case reports. As a result, traditional epidemiological approaches that included field investigations, clinical and necropsy examinations were implemented to identify, characterize and describe this condition. Based on clinical findings, imaging modalities, and necropsy specimens examined during September to December 2012, inclusive, a more specific name and descriptive case definition were introduced. TTNS descriptive epidemiology was described by use of a retrospective database analysis from Feedlot Health Management Services (FHMS) with 702 veterinarian confirmed TTNS cases by necropsy examination. From this database, there were 30% (210/702) of necropsy cases treated for TTNS and 70% of cases (492/702) that were not treated. Of those animals treated, the mean and standard deviation (median) interval from feedlot arrival to first treatment was 18.9 ±1.7 d (12 d). The mean (standard deviation) days on feed until death from TTNS was the earliest in grass-fed calves (32.4 ± 22.1 d), followed by auction-derived (40.6 ± 40.6 d), ranch direct (44.1 ± 53.1 d), and back-grounded calves (69.0 ± 75.6 d) (P < 0.001). Yearlings were on feed for a mean (standard deviation) days of 37.1 ± 32.0 d when compared to calves at 49.5 ± 57.0 d before death (P < 0.001). The greatest proportion of deaths occurred from September to November. There were 96.2% (1,832/1,904) of lots without one case of TTNS and 3.8% (72/1,904) of lots had one or more TTNS cases. A prospective case-control study to identify TTNS risk factors consisted of 148 total necropsy submissions (82 cases, 66 controls) from three feedlot veterinary practices and 16 feedlots during October 2012 to January 2013, inclusive. Confirmation of feet samples by the principal investigator at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine reduced the total to 135 animals: 67 cases and 68 controls. The measure of agreement (kappa) on classification of TTNS cases and controls between the veterinary practice and WCVM was 0.778 (P < 0.001). Bacterial culture results revealed that 75% of pure isolates in TTNS cases were attributed to Escherichia coli, Streptococcus spp., Trueperella pyogenes, Fusobacterium necrophorum. TTNS cases were 3.8 times more likely than control animals to have BVDV isolated (95% CI 1.7-8.5; P < 0.001). TTNS animals were 2.2 times more likely than control animals to have histopathological evidence of vasculitis (95% CI 1.0-4.6; P = 0.04). BVDV samples were 11.2 times more likely to show histopathological evidence of vasculitis than non-BVDV samples (95% CI 4.7-27.0; P < 0.001). A decreased difference was found in sole thickness at the toe tip (P < 0.001). There was no evidence of pedal bone rotation between case and control animals (P = 0.15). In summary, TTNS is a specific term for apical white line separation with tissue necrosis and clinical lameness. A practitioner's field diagnosis of TTNS based on apical white line separation and tissue necrosis is accurate on clinical signs alone. TTNS is a transport or arrival related condition in feedlot cattle that has a propensity for cases to cluster together. Pure bacterial isolates provide an understanding of the pathogens responsible for TTNS and that environmental pathogens contribute to an ascending infection. BVDV, vasculitis and apical sole thickness were risk factors associated with TTNS; however, their exact role requires further investigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Library - University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan)Same topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207