MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366779375 · doi:10.1016/j.vetpar.2023.109936

World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) guideline for diagnosing anthelmintic resistance using the faecal egg count reduction test in ruminants, horses and swine

2023· review· en· W4366779375 on OpenAlexaff
Ray M. Kaplan, Matthew Denwood, Martin K. Nielsen, Stig Milan Thamsborg, Paul R. Torgerson, John S. Gilleard, Jozef Vercruysse, Bruno Levecke

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Parasitology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicHelminth infection and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineAnthelminticVeterinary parasitologyVeterinary medicineLivestockBiologyMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) remains the method of choice for establishing the efficacy of anthelmintic compounds in the field, including the diagnosis of anthelmintic resistance. We present a guideline for improving the standardization and performance of the FECRT that has four sections. In the first section, we address the major issues relevant to experimental design, choice of faecal egg count (FEC) method, statistical analysis, and interpretation of the FECRT results. In the second section, we make a series of general recommendations that are applicable across all animals addressed in this guideline. In the third section, we provide separate guidance details for cattle, small ruminants (sheep and goats), horses and pigs to address the issues that are specific to the different animal types. Finally, we provide overviews of the specific details required to conduct an FECRT for each of the different host species. To address the issues of statistical power vs. practicality, we also provide two separate options for each animal species; (i) a version designed to detect small changes in efficacy that is intended for use in scientific studies, and (ii) a less resource-intensive version intended for routine use by veterinarians and livestock owners to detect larger changes in efficacy. Compared to the previous FECRT recommendations, four important differences are noted. First, it is now generally recommended to perform the FECRT based on pre- and post-treatment FEC of the same animals (paired study design), rather than on post-treatment FEC of both treated and untreated (control) animals (unpaired study design). Second, instead of requiring a minimum mean FEC (expressed in eggs per gram (EPG)) of the group to be tested, the new requirement is for a minimum total number of eggs to be counted under the microscope (cumulative number of eggs counted before the application of a conversion factor). Third, we provide flexibility in the required size of the treatment group by presenting three separate options that depend on the (expected) number of eggs counted. Finally, these guidelines address all major livestock species, and the thresholds for defining reduced efficacy are adapted and aligned to host species, anthelmintic drug and parasite species. In conclusion, these new guidelines provide improved methodology and standardization of the FECRT for all major livestock species.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.034

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations204
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary ParasitologySame topicHelminth infection and controlFrench-language works237,207