MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1672228394

Detection of Leptospira spp. in wildlife reservoir hosts in Ontario through comparison of immunohistochemical and polymerase chain reaction genotyping methods.

2014· article· en· W1672228394 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen E. Shearer, Michael Harte, Davor Ojkić, J Delay

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicLeptospirosis research and findings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeptospiraGenotypingWildlifePolymerase chain reactionLivestockBiologyVeterinary medicineGeographyMolecular biologyLeptospirosisEcologyGenotypeVirologyMedicineGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 460 kidney samples from wildlife (beavers, coyotes, deer, foxes, opossums, otters, raccoons, skunks) were obtained from road-kill and hunter/trapper donations in Ontario between January 2010 and November 2012. The objectives of the study were to detect Leptospira spp. by immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction (PCR), to map presence of leptospires in wildlife relative to livestock and human populations, and to characterize positive samples by sequencing and comparison to leptospires known to affect domestic animals and humans. The proportion of samples that tested positive ranged from 0% to 42%, with the highest rates in skunks and raccoons. Leptospira spp. were present in kidneys of wildlife across Ontario, particularly in areas of high human density, and areas in which livestock populations are abundant. The PCR was too weak in most samples to permit genotyping and examination of the relationship between the leptospires found in this study and those affecting domestic animals and humans.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicLeptospirosis research and findingsFrench-language works237,207