Evaluation of Surveillance Strategies of Antimicrobial Consumption in Animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to explore and assess various strategies for monitoring antimicrobial consumption (AMC) in animals, within the context of the One Health approach. Recent studies have shed light on the limited surveillance and data collection for AMC in animals. Using the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention Policy Analytical Framework, we assess global, national, and farm-level surveillance strategies on public health impact and feasibility using evidence from primary, secondary, and grey literature. From this, we identify key policy mechanisms that support the adoption of surveillance while providing specific recommendations. We find that a global strategy, though valuable for benchmarking and policy guidance, faces participation and data visibility challenges. National-level surveillance offers direct inputs into national action plans but struggles with data uniformity and comparability. Farm-level surveillance, while resource-intensive, provides the most granular data for informing specific interventions. We advocate for a multi-faceted approach to AMC surveillance, emphasizing that legal mandates and financial incentives are crucial for encouraging surveillance participation, along with international cooperation for enhancing participation and data quality. Drawing parallels with public reporting challenges in other sectors can provide valuable lessons on how to address data collection, analysis, and reporting barriers.
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 | 0.153 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".