MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411429631 · doi:10.3390/ani15121789

Antimicrobial Resistance in Bovine Respiratory Disease Pathogens: A Systematic Review and Analysis of the Published Literature

2025· review· en· W4411429631 on OpenAlexaff
Brian V. Lubbers, Brad J. White, Siddartha Torres, Pedro Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsMerck Canada Inc. (Canada)
FundersMerck Animal HealthMerck
KeywordsPasteurella multocidaAntimicrobialBovine respiratory diseaseAntibiotic resistanceMicrobiologyBiologyDrug resistanceMedicineVeterinary medicineAntibioticsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is the most significant disease challenge in the feeder cattle industry in North America. Antimicrobials are commonly administered in BRD cases due to the role of bacterial pathogens. However, reports of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in these pathogens raise concerns regarding their long-term effectiveness to treat BRD cases. A systematic literature review was conducted to summarize AMR in North American BRD pathogens and determine if changes in AMR prevalence over time could be identified for antimicrobials routinely used for treatment and control of BRD. Generalized linear models were used to test associations between the proportion of resistant isolates for each of the three bacterial agents and antimicrobial agent, isolation year, and timing of sample collection. The antimicrobial agent and timing of sample collection were significantly associated with the proportion of antimicrobial resistant isolates, with increased probability of resistance to tulathromycin seen in Mannheimia haemolytica (24.08%) and Histophilus somni (8.19%) and increased resistance to tildipirosin in Pasteurella multocida (21.48%), while samples collected at arrival demonstrated a lower proportions of resistant bacteria. Trends over time could not be evaluated due to the limited number of published studies. These findings highlight the differences in AMR seen between antimicrobials, BRD pathogens, and sample types and emphasize the need for continued AMR surveillance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207