Comparison of postweaning bovine respiratory disease treatment rates between non-vaccinated control beef calves and calves variably primed and boosted using commercially available bovine coronavirus vaccines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and overall postweaning treatment rates were compared among 3 groups of calves either differentially primed and boosted with commercially available bovine coronavirus (BCoV) vaccine or not vaccinated against BCoV. Animals: Commercial heifer and steer beef calves born in April and May 2022. Procedure: = 151)] were unvaccinated against BCoV. The V1 and V2 groups were boosted by intramuscular injection pre-weaning with the same vaccine used for priming. Weaning occurred 3 wk after the last preweaning processing day. Ranch staff used a BRD case definition provided by their herd veterinarian to identify, treat, and record treatments for 45 d post-weaning. Results: Postweaning BRD treatment rates for V1, V2, and CTL were 7%, 9%, and 14%, respectively. The CTL calves had 2.2× greater odds of receiving treatment for BRD than V1 calves. There were no differences in odds of treatment between CTL and V2 calves or V1 and V2 calves. Conclusion: In a herd with previously diagnosed BCoV BRD cases, prime-boost vaccination of calves is associated with a difference in odds of BRD treatment post-weaning compared to not vaccinating calves against BCoV. Clinical relevance: Prime-boost vaccination with commercial BCoV vaccine may be an important management tool for herds with known BCoV BRD outbreaks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".