Prevalence of Bartonella species and 16s rRNA gene types of Bartonella henselae from domestic cats in Thailand.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevalence of Bartonella infection among 275 cats in 9 sites from 4 geographical regions (northern area: Chiang Mai; central area: Kanchanaburi, Ratchaburi, and Bangkok; northeastern area: Khon Kaen, Roi Et, Ubon Ratcharthani, and Nakhonratchasima; southern area: Songkhla) of Thailand was investigated. Overall, Bartonella species were isolated from 27.6% (76 of 275) of the cats. The isolation rate varied from 12.8% (5 of 39) in Songkhla (southern area) to 50.0% (26 of 52) in Khon Kaen (northeastern area). Bartonella henselae and B. clarridgeiae were isolated from 82.9% (63 of 76) and 11.8% (9 of 76) of the Bartonella-positive cats, respectively. Coinfection with both species was found in 5.3% (4 of 76) of the bacteremic cats. Of the 67 bacteremic cats from which B. henselae was isolated, 48 (71.6%) and 13 (19.4%) were infected with only Type I and Type II, respectively. Coinfection with both types was observed in 9.0% (6 of 67) of the B. henselae-positive cats. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the presence of Bartonella infection in domestic cats from Thailand, which constitute a large reservoir of Bartonella infection in this country.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".