↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotic Resistances in Livestock: A Comparative Approach to Identify an Appropriate Regression Model for Count Data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antibiotic Resistances in Livestock: A Comparative Approach to Identify an Appropriate Regression Model for Count Data
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anke Hüls, Cornelia Frömke, Katja Ickstadt, Katja Hille, Johanna Hering, Christiane von Münchhausen, Maria Hartmann, Lothar Kreienbrock

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance in livestock is a matter of general concern. To develop hygiene measures and methods for resistance prevention and control, epidemiological studies on a population level are needed to detect factors associated with antimicrobial resistance in livestock holdings. In general, regression models are used to describe these relationships between environmental factors and resistance outcome. Besides the study design, the correlation structures of the different outcomes of antibiotic resistance and structural zero measurements on the resistance outcome as well as on the exposure side are challenges for the epidemiological model building process. The use of appropriate regression models that acknowledge these complexities is essential to assure valid epidemiological interpretations. The aims of this paper are (i) to explain the model building process comparing several competing models for count data (negative binomial model, quasi-Poisson model, zero-inflated model, and hurdle model) and (ii) to compare these models using data from a cross-sectional study on antibiotic resistance in animal husbandry. These goals are essential to evaluate which model is most suitable to identify potential prevention measures. The dataset used as an example in our analyses was generated initially to study the prevalence and associated factors for the appearance of cefotaxime-resistant Escherichia coli in 48 German fattening pig farms. For each farm, the outcome was the count of samples with resistant bacteria. There was almost no overdispersion and only moderate evidence of excess zeros in the data. Our analyses show that it is essential to evaluate regression models in studies analyzing the relationship between environmental factors and antibiotic resistances in livestock. After model comparison based on evaluation of model predictions, Akaike information criterion, and Pearson residuals, here the hurdle model was judged to be the most appropriate model.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 5 12%
Lecturer 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 18 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#14,349,470
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#2,314
of 6,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,808
of 316,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#28
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.