MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W147535709

How do swine practitioners and veterinary pathologists arrive at a diagnosis of Clostridium perfringens type A enteritis in neonatal piglets?

2013· article· en· W147535709 on OpenAlexaff
Gloria Chan, Abdolvahab Farzan, John F. Prescott, Robert Friendship

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridium perfringensEnteritisMedicineDiarrheaHistopathologyVeterinary medicineIsolation (microbiology)PathologyInternal medicineMicrobiologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A questionnaire was administered to 22 veterinary practitioners and 17 veterinary pathologists to investigate the methods used for diagnosis of Clostridium perfringens type A enteritis in neonatal pigs. Practitioners generally diagnosed C. perfringens type A associated enteritis by age of onset of diarrhea (between 1 to 7 days of age). Most practitioners (95%) were moderately to very confident in their diagnosis. Pathologists generally diagnosed C. perfringens type A associated enteritis by combinations of isolation of the organism, genotyping or detecting the toxins of the organism, and ruling out other pathogens through histopathology. Almost half (41%) of the pathologists were not confident of their diagnosis. This study reports that the current diagnostic method for C. perfringens type A enteritis is not specific, and although many pathologists expressed reservations about making a diagnosis of C. perfringens type A enteritis, most practitioners were confident in their diagnosis, even though reported clinical signs of clostridial diarrhea are similar to those of a number of other enteric diseases.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207