Evaluating a selective therapy approach to antimicrobial treatment of high-risk calves at arrival to a male dairy calf rearing facility on future health, growth and antimicrobial use: A group randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this group randomized controlled trial was to compare a selective therapy strategy to a conventional group antimicrobial strategy at the time of arrival on mortality, morbidity, average daily gain and antimicrobial use. Data were collected from 1,032 calves in 19 rooms over an 84-day study period between January 15 and August 7, 2018. All calves were randomly assigned to rooms and subject to a standardized screening risk assessment upon arrival at the facility. Rooms were randomly assigned to receive either conventional group oral antimicrobials; or, selective therapy based on risk assignment (long-acting parenteral antimicrobials, oral electrolytes, or both). Cox proportional hazards models were built for calf health outcomes, while mixed linear regression models were constructed for calf growth and antimicrobial use outcomes. There was no difference between interventions for morbidity over the entire study period. However, lightweight calves assigned to the conventional group antimicrobial therapy had higher total and group treatment incidence. Calves assigned to the selective therapy strategy that had rectal temperatures below 103.1 °F (39.5 °C) at the time of arrival were more likely to be treated with antimicrobials. The selective therapy strategy had an increased hazard of mortality. Growth was lower in calves assigned to the selective therapy strategy in the winter as compared to calves assigned to conventional group metaphylaxis. This study demonstrates that a selective therapy strategy at the time of arrival may not be appropriate for all facilities or in all seasons despite the overall reduction in antimicrobial use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".