MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322575803 · doi:10.21423/aabppro20044933

Study to Compare the Efficacy of Three Oxytetracycline Regimens for the Treatment of Anaplasma Marginale Carrier Status in Beef Cattle

2004· article· en· W4322575803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johann F. Coetzee, Michael D. Apley, K. M. Kocan, D. P. Knowles, J. V. Donkersgoed

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaplasmosisOxytetracyclineAnaplasmaVeterinary medicineBeef cattleBiologyCattle DiseasesAnaplasma phagocytophilumMedicineAnimal scienceAntibioticsTickImmunologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anaplasmosis is a blood-borne disease of cattle and other ruminants caused by Anaplasma marginale. Animals recovering from clinical anaplasmosis and those treated with therapeutic doses of oxytetracycline remain persistently infected with microscopically undetectable levels of the organism. These animals serve as reservoirs of the disease which can be spread mechanically or through arthropod vectors. Tetracyclines are the only compounds approved for treatment of acute anaplasmosis infections in the United States; however no compounds are approved for eliminating the carrier state. This has contributed to the restricted movement of cattle from endemic areas of the US to anaplasmosis-free territories such as Canada. Anaplasmosis is estimated to cost the US cattle industry $100 million per year, with some estimating the cost of resticted trade to be near $300 million annually. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of three oxytetracycline treatment regimens on eliminating Anaplasma marginale infection from carrier beef steers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference ProceedingsSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207