Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38473151›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Pen-Based Swine Oral Fluid Samples Contain Both Environmental and Pig-Derived Targets.

Grzegorz Tarasiuk, Marta D Remmenga, Kathleen C O'Hara, Marian K Talbert, Marisa L Rotolo, Pam Zaabel, Danyang Zhang, Luis G Giménez-Lirola, Jeffrey J Zimmerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Oral fluids for detection and characterization ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessing the detection and interaction ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Grzegorz TarasiukDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Marta D RemmengaUSDA: VS: Strategy and Policy, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-6518-7068
Kathleen C O'HaraUSDA: VS: Strategy and Policy, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9697-3939
Marian K TalbertUSDA: VS: Strategy and Policy, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA.
Marisa L RotoloPIC North America, Hendersonville, TN 37075, USA.
Pam ZaabelNational Pork Board, Des Moines, IA 50325, USA.
Danyang ZhangDepartment of Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010, USA.
Luis G Giménez-LirolaDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4407-7996
Jeffrey J ZimmermanDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8107-2422

Funding

United States Department of Agriculture AP22VSSP0000C047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laboratory methods for detecting specific pathogens in oral fluids are widely reported, but there is little research on the oral fluid sampling process itself. In this study, a fluorescent tracer (diluted red food coloring) was used to test the transfer of a target directly from pigs or indirectly from the environment to pen-based oral fluid samples. Pens of ~30, ~60, and ~125 14-week-old pigs (32 pens/size) on commercial swine farms received one of two treatments: (1) pig exposure, i.e., ~3.5 mL of tracer solution sprayed into the mouth of 10% of the pigs in the pen; (2) environmental exposure, i.e., 20 mL of tracer solution was poured on the floor in the center of the pen. Oral fluids collected one day prior to treatment (baseline fluorescence control) and immediately after treatment were tested for fluorescence. Data were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, with Youden's J statistic used to set a threshold. Pretreatment oral fluid samples with fluorescence responses above the ROC threshold were removed from further analysis (7 of 96 samples). Based on the ROC analyses, oral fluid samples from 78 of 89 pens (87.6%), contained red food coloring, including 43 of 47 (91.5%) pens receiving pig exposure and 35 of 42 (83.3%) pens receiving environmental exposure. Thus, oral fluid samples contain both pig-derived and environmental targets. This methodology provides a safe and quantifiable method to evaluate oral fluid sampling vis-à-vis pen behavior, pen size, sampling protocol, and target distribution in the pen.

Indexed as

environmental samplingoral fluidssamplingsurveillanceswinetracer

Identifiers

PMID38473151
PMCPMC10931252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.