Comparing initial antimicrobial treatments for bovine respiratory disease in feedlot cattle following tulathromycin metaphylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to compare bovine respiratory disease (BRD) first treatment protocols following metaphylaxis with tulathromycin in a two-phase study. The primary objective of Phase 1 was to compare effects of tulathromycin + ketoprofen versus florfenicol + flunixin meglumine (FLO+F) on primary health outcomes (retreatment and mortality) in ultra-high-risk feedlot cattle that received on-arrival metaphylaxis with tulathromycin. The Phase 2 objective was similar, but tildipirosin was added as a third treatment group. In Phase 1, steers and heifers (n = 521; 402 ± 57 lb [182 ± 26 kg]) were enrolled at a Texas feedlot, and in Phase 2, steers (n = 788; 640 ± 105 lb [290 ± 48 kg]) were enrolled at a Canadian feedlot. At first BRD diagnosis from natural exposure, cases were individually randomized to experimental treatments. Linear and generalized linear models were used for statistical analyses. Case (BRD) fatality for cattle enrolled in Phases 1 and 2 were 2.36% (12/508) and 11.04% (87/788), respectively. In Phase 1, there was no evidence of differences in health outcomes (all P values ≥ 0.60). In Phase 2, retreatment risk did not significantly differ (P = 0.93), but total and BRD-specific mortality were reduced and survival from enrollment to mortality was longer (P values < 0.05) for FLO+F compared to the other two treatments. Following tulathromycin metaphylaxis, antimicrobials used for first BRD treatment had similar effectiveness when subsequent health outcomes were infrequent (Phase 1), but FLO+F reduced mortalities when case fatality was higher (Phase 2).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".