Strategies to reduce antimicrobials in livestock and aquaculture, and their impact under field conditions: a structured scoping literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance is a pandemic problem, causing substantial health and economic burdens. Antimicrobials are extensively used in livestock and aquaculture, exacerbating this global threat. Fostering the prudent use of antimicrobials will safeguard animal and human health. A lack of knowledge about alternatives to replace antimicrobials, and their effectiveness under field conditions, hampers changes in farming practices. This work aimed to understand the impact of strategies to reduce antimicrobial usage (AMU) in livestock and aquaculture, under field conditions, using a structured scoping literature review. The Extension for Scoping Reviews of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines (PRISMA-ScR) were followed and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time and Setting (PICOTS) framework used. Articles were identified from CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE and Scopus. A total of 7505 unique research articles were identified, 926 of which were eligible for full-text assessment; 203 articles were included in data extraction. Given heterogeneity across articles in the way alternatives to antimicrobials or interventions against their usage were described, there was a need to standardize these by grouping them in categories. There were differences in the impacts of the strategies between and within species; this highlights the absence of a 'one-size-fits-all' solution. Nevertheless, some options seem more promising than others, as their impacts were consistently equivalent or positive when compared with animal performance using antimicrobials. This was particularly the case for bioactive protein and peptides, and feed/water management. The outcomes of this work provide data to inform cost-effectiveness assessments of strategies to reduce AMU.
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 | 0.023 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".