MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405637453 · doi:10.20506/rst.se.3565

Advances in addressing antimicrobial resistance

2024· review· fr· W4405637453 on OpenAlexaff
J. Scott Weese, Carrie A. Carson

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Scientifique et Technique de l OIE · 2024
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStewardship (theology)PandemicAnimal healthAntimicrobial stewardshipFood securityBusinessOne HealthResistance (ecology)Antibiotic resistanceHuman welfareRisk analysis (engineering)BiotechnologyPolitical scienceWelfareCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public healthMedicineAgricultureBiologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)EcologyDiseasePoliticsVeterinary medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been described as a silent pandemic - one that is ever-present, ubiquitous and growing but often insidious and overlooked. A true One Health issue, AMR affects people, animals, plants, crops and the environment in complex and interconnected but poorly understood ways, and the impact will continue to increase. In animals, AMR affects animal health, welfare and production and is also considered a food safety, food security and substantial economic issue. This article describes recent advances in addressing AMR in bacteria from animals, focusing on surveillance, applied stewardship, new drug development and alternatives to antimicrobials, strengthening animal health systems, changes in global awareness, and obstacles to effective surveillance and stewardship.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue Scientifique et Technique de l OIESame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207