Pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study objective was to evaluate the effects of applying a culture-guided, quarter-level selective dry cow therapy (SDCT) program on udder health and antibiotic usage as compared to blanket dry cow therapy (BDCT). Two days prior to dry-off (DO), 56 cows were randomly assigned to a BDCT or SDCT group and aseptic quarter milk samples were collected for laboratory culture. For cows in the SDCT group, milk from each quarter was also cultured using a rapid culture system, with results recorded as bacterial "growth" or "no growth". On the day of DO, cows in the BDCT group were infused with an antibiotic and an internal teat sealant in all 4 quarters. For cows assigned to the SDCT group, quarters with bacterial growth were infused with an antibiotic plus internal teat sealant, while quarters with no growth were infused with internal teat sealant only. Quarter milk samples were collected days 1 through 7 after calving for laboratory culture, and clinical mastitis events were recorded between DO and 30 days-in-milk. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of treatment on measures of udder health after calving. Results showed no effect of treatment on quarter level risk for presence of infection after calving ( 42.1 % vs 39.6%), cures (82.3% vs 88.0%), or new infection ( 41.5% vs 40.2%) for the SDCT and BDCT group, respectively. Antibiotic use was reduced by 48% in the SDCT group. Results of this pilot study suggest that a culture-guided quarter-level SDCT program can achieve equal udder health compared to BDCT, while significantly reducing antibiotic use at DO.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.161 | 0.048 |
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".