Antimicrobial activity in vitro against Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni from cattle with naturally occurring bovine respiratory disease and its association to clinical outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance is frequently blamed for clinical failures of treatment or control of bovine respiratory disease (BRD). Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni, and Mycoplasma bovis are generally recognized as the four main bacterial pathogens associated with BRD. This study used data from randomized, controlled, clinical trials that recorded qualitative classification of clinical outcomes (success, or failure) and of results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST; classified as resistant, or not resistant to florfenicol, gamithromycin, tildipirosin, or tulathromycin). Association of results in vitro to clinical outcome for treatment or control of naturally occurring BRD (1 319 calves) was quantitatively evaluated. Clinical outcome was not significantly (P = 0.4643) associated (Fisher’s exact test) with qualitative results of AST in vitro for pathogens that were not exposed to antimicrobial medication in vivo (971 head of cattle). Clinical outcome was significantly (P < 0.0001) associated with qualitative results of AST in vitro for pathogens that were exposed to antimicrobial medication in vivo (348 head of cattle). For pathogens not exposed to antimicrobial medication in vivo, 1.85 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 5.32) of clinical failures were attributable to antimicrobial resistance. For pathogens exposed to antimicrobial medication in vivo, 51.72 % (95 % CI = 32.53 to 70.55) of clinical failures were attributable to antimicrobial resistance. In conclusion, antimicrobial resistance of bacterial pathogens associated with BRD and not exposed to antimicrobial medication in vivo is a quantitatively minor cause of clinical failure for treatment or control of naturally occurring BRD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".