MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1805590502 · doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.en-761

Preparatory work for the future development of scientific opinions on animal health

2015· article· en· W1805590502 on OpenAlexaff
Annette M. O’Connor, R. S. Dzikamunhenga, Dianna Wolfe, Jonathon Gilbert Sargeant, Julie Glanville, Hannah Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueEFSA Supporting Publications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural safety and regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceFamily and consumer scienceGerontologyMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This final report summarizes the results of two reviews and a scoping study related to Canine leishmaniosis (CanL). Three objectives were addressed in this project. Objective 1 was to summarize relative sensitivity and specificity estimates of assays used to detect infection in dogs with Leishmania infantum in studies of naïve dogs in areas where Leishmania infantum infection is endemic. Objective 2 was to summarize data available to estimate the prevalence of parasitological cure (failure to detect organism) after a 12-month follow-up period in animals treated with meglumine antimoniate, miltefosine, and allopurinol or combinations of these drugs for canine leishmaniosis. Objective 3 was to assess diagnostic test characteristics of PCR assays and serological assays (ELISA or IFAT) from studies that use experimental models of Canine leishmaniosis. The same comprehensive search was used for all objectives. The searches yielded 7,405 records. After duplicates were removed, 3,865 records remained. Of these, 243 were broadly identified as diagnostic test evaluation studies and at the 2nd level of screening 18 were considered longitudinal studies. The 18 references were then assessed based on the full text and 7 were considered relevant to the review. The assays assessed by these studies were PCR on skin, buffy coat, bone marrow, blood and conjunctiva, and IFAT and ELISA. For objective 2, 40 potentially relevant records were identified as treatment comparison studies. After full-text screening, 13 studies were included in the review. The treatments varied greatly, and few comparative efficacy estimates were provided. No treatment was associated with 100% cure after 180 days follow-up. For objective 3, 513 citations were identified and the full texts of 169 articles were obtained. Sixty-two articles described at least one of the assays requested (PCR, ELISA or IFAT) and 18 articles described the use of a PCR and either ELISA and/or IFAT.

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)0.141
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.214
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1410.214
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0130.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0170.025
Open science0.0070.015
Research integrity0.0120.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1620.082

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEFSA Supporting PublicationsSame topicAgricultural safety and regulationsFrench-language works237,207