Factors associated with antimicrobial resistant enterococci in Canadian beef cattle: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".