MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1578986957

Leptospirosis in dogs: a serologic survey and case series 1996 to 2001.

2003· article· en· W1578986957 on OpenAlexaff
Pam Boutilier, Anthony P. Carr, Rhonda L. Schulman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicLeptospirosis research and findings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeptospirosisSerotypeDirect agglutination testMedicineTiterSerologyLeptospiraVaccinationVeterinary medicineVirologyImmunologyAntibodyVirus
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All leptospirosis microscopic agglutination test titers for the Leptospira serovars icterohaemorrhagiae, canicola, grippotyphosa, bratislava, hardjo, and pomona conducted on 1,260 blood samples from dogs at the University of Illinois Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory between March 1996 and March 2001 were evaluated. Low titers (1:100 to 1:400) were predominantly L. icterohaemorrhagiae and L. canicola, which represented the predominant serovars (65.4%) among all positive samples with low titers. L. grippotyphosa was the predominant serovar (72.1%) among samples with clinically significant titers (greater than 1:800). The medical records of 87 dogs with a titer greater than 1:800 that were patients at the Veterinary Teaching Hospital of the University of Illinois were reviewed. A clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis was made in 15 cases (17.2%) based on the elevated titer, appropriate clinical signs, lack of recent vaccination, and lack of concurrent disease that could explain the clinical signs present. Renal disease was present in 10 of the cases, concurrent renal and hepatic disease in two, and hepatic disease in three. In 12 cases, the predominant serovar was L. grippotyphosa; titers to L. grippotyphosa and L. bratislava were equal in magnitude in three cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicLeptospirosis research and findingsFrench-language works237,207