Leptospira Infections in Trappers from Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Four trappers presented to the Middlesex-London Health Unit in November, 1997 with similar clinical presentations. All four complained of fever, chills and headache, and three of the four had severe muscle aches. All gave histories of trapping raccoons before the onset of illness. Three of the four men exhibited diagnostic seroconversions to Leptospira grippotyphosa. OBJECTIVE: To describe the four suspected cases of leptospira infections and to determine whether raccoons might serve as a reservoir of infection using field studies. DESIGN: Raccoon serology were undertaken using the microscopic agglutination test against eight serovars of Leptospira interrogans including L grippotyphosa. Raccoons were trapped using Tomahawk live traps, anaesthetized with intramuscular injection of ketamine and acepromazine, bled by cardiac puncture and released. RESULTS: Forty-two raccoons were trapped in Middlesex (n=36) and Kent counties (n=6) from April 25 to May 2, 1998, and 10 (23.8%) of these animals had antibodies to L grippotyphosa. CONCLUSIONS: Infections due to L grippotyphosa or a closely related serovar are a risk for trappers in Ontario, and raccoons are a likely reservoir of this bacterium.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".