MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vaccination to control Salmonella shedding and improve growth in pigs

2009· article· en· W83034741 on OpenAlexaff
Abdolvahab Farzan, Robert Friendship

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on the Epidemiology and Control of Biological, Chemical and Physical Hazards in Pigs and Pork · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationSalmonellaVirologyBiologyMicrobiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A clinical field trial was performed to determine the effectiveness of an autogenous Salmonella Typhimurium bacterin compared to a commercial live S. choleraesuis vaccine in pigs. The association between Salmonella shedding and weight gain was also investigated. Nine cohorts of weaned pigs were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups (injection with S. Typhimurium bacteria, vaccination via water with S. Choleraesuis vaccine, or a control group receiving no vaccine). In each cohort, the average daily gain was calculated for a selected pen throughout the production stage. Fecal samples were collected bi-weekly and cultured. The pigs vaccinated for S. Choleraesuis were more likely to shed Salmonella compared to pigs vaccinated with S. Typhimurium bacterin and the chance of Salmonella shedding in the both vaccinated groups was higher than in the control group. The pigs from pens with a higher Salmonella recovery rate experienced slower growth compared to pigs from pens where Salmonella was not isolated. This latter finding indicates that there might be an economic incentive for producers to try to control endemic salmonellosis if effective programs could be developed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on the Epidemiology and Control of Biological, Chemical and Physical Hazards in Pigs and PorkSame topicCancer Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207