comparison of two multivalent modified live viral/bacterial combination vaccines in feedlot calves at ultra-high risk of developing undifferentiated fever/bovine respiratory disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaccine 1 (VAC1 group) and Vaccine 2 (VAC2 group) are commercially available vaccines labeled for the control of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in beef cattle. There are limited data from large-scale commercial feedlot trials comparing VAC1 and VAC2 arrival processing vaccination programs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative effects of VAC1 and VAC2 arrival processing vaccination programs on animal health, feedlot performance and carcass characteristic outcomes in feedlot calves at ultra-high risk of developing undifferentiated fever/BRD under large-scale commercial production conditions. Animals were randomly allocated at feedlot arrival to 1 of 2 experimental groups: VAC1 or VAC2. Animals in the VAC1 group (6 multi-pen lots; 3,001 animals) received a bovine rhinotracheitis-virus diarrhea-parainfluenza 3-respiratory syncytial virus-Mannheimia haemolytica-Pasteurella multocida vaccine per animal once at allocation. Animals in the VAC2 group (6 multi-pen lots; 3,005 animals) received a bovine rhinotracheitis-virus diarrhea-parainfluenza 3-respiratory syncytial virus vaccine with a Mannheimia haemolytica toxoid per animal once at allocation. Vaccines differed regarding viral strains, bacterial protection, means for providing bacterial immunity, and adjuvant use. Animals were housed by experimental group in commercial feedlot pens and followed from allocation until slaughter. Although histophilosis mortality was higher in the VAC1 group compared to the VAC2 group (P = 0.040), no statistical differences were detected in overall mortality or any of the other outcome variables (P ≥ 0.050). The relative cost effectiveness of each arrival processing vaccination program in the study population is therefore dependent on relative program cost.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".