Comparison of susceptibility to antimicrobials of bacterial isolates from\ncompanion animals in a veterinary diagnostic laboratory in Canada between 2 time\npoints 10 years apart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The susceptibility to antimicrobials of bacterial species most frequently\nisolated from companion animals in a veterinary teaching diagnostic\nlaboratory was evaluated retrospectively. A significant decrease between 1990–1992 and 2002–2003 was noted in the susceptibility\nof dog isolates to the following antimicrobials: Escherichia coli to cephalothin (86% to 61%, P < 0.001); E. coli to ampicillin (85% to 67%, P < 0.001); Proteus spp. to ampicillin (92% to 71%, P < 0.01); coagulase-positive staphylococci (Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus intermedius) to enrofloxacin (99% to 95%, P < 0.01). Significantly increased susceptibilities were also noted as\nfollows: coagulase-positive staphylococci to erythromycin (78% to 90%, P < 0.001) and tetracycline (61% to 77%, P < 0.001). Despite a limited number of results available for cats, a\nsignificant increase in susceptibility was noted for Pseudomonas spp. to gentamicin (40% to 100%, P < 0.05) and for E. coli to tetracycline (59% to 80%, P < 0.05). Regular updates on the resistance to antimicrobials used in\nveterinary medicine are required.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".