MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366547918 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1155772

Factors associated with antimicrobial resistant enterococci in Canadian beef cattle: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4366547918 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kayla Strong, Kaitlin L. Marasco, Jesse Invik, Heather Ganshorn, Richard J. Reid‐Smith, Cheryl Waldner, Simon J. G. Otto, John P. Kastelic, Sylvia Checkley

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaSouth Health CampusUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsAntimicrobialContext (archaeology)Beef cattleAntibiotic resistanceBiotechnologyMEDLINEMedicineBiologyEnvironmental healthAntibioticsMicrobiologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health concern, occurring when bacteria evolve to render antimicrobials no longer effective. Antimicrobials have important roles in beef production; however, the potential to introduce AMR to people through beef products is a concern. This scoping review identifies factors associated with changes in the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus spp. applicable to the Canadian farm-to-fork beef continuum. Methods Five databases (MEDLINE, BIOSIS, Web of Science, Embase, and CAB Abstracts) were searched for articles published from January 1984 to March 2022, using a priori inclusion criteria. Peer-reviewed articles were included if they met all the following criteria: written in English, applicable to the Canadian beef production context, primary research, in vivo research, describing an intervention or exposure, and specific to Enterococcus spp. Results Out of 804 screened articles, 26 were selected for inclusion. The included articles discussed 37 factors potentially associated with AMR in enterococci, with multiple articles discussing at least two of the same factors. Factors discussed included antimicrobial administration ( n = 16), raised without antimicrobials ( n = 6), metal supplementation ( n = 4), probiotics supplementation ( n = 3), pen environment ( n = 2), essential oil supplementation ( n = 1), grass feeding ( n = 1), therapeutic versus subtherapeutic antimicrobial use ( n = 1), feeding wet distiller grains with solubles ( n = 1), nutritional supplementation ( n = 1) and processing plant type ( n = 1). Results were included irrespective of their quality of evidence. Discussion Comparability issues arising throughout the review process were related to data aggregation, hierarchical structures, study design, and inconsistent data reporting. Findings from articles were often temporally specific in that resistance was associated with AMR outcomes at sampling times closer to exposure compared to studies that sampled at longer intervals after exposure. Resistance was often nuanced to unique gene and phenotypic resistance patterns that varied with species of enterococci. Intrinsic resistance and interpretation of minimum inhibitory concentration varied greatly among enterococcal species, highlighting the importance of caution when comparing articles and generalizing findings. Systematic Review Registration [ http://hdl.handle.net/1880/113592 ]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207