Reduced viral burden in paralytic compared to furious canine rabies is associated with prominent inflammation at the brainstem level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mechanisms that differentiate rabies infections into furious and paralytic forms remain undetermined. There are no neuropathological features in human brains that distinguish furious and paralytic rabies. This could be due to methodology and/or examination of specimens late in the disease course.In this study, postmortem examination of brain (5 furious and 5 paralytic) and spinal cord (3 furious and 3 paralytic) specimens was performed in 10 rabies-infected dogs, sacrificed shortly after developing the illness. Rabies virus (RABV) antigen (percentage of positive neurons, average antigen area in positive neurons and average antigen area per neuron) and RNA were quantified at 15 different central nervous system (CNS) regions. The distribution and degree of inflammation were also studied. RESULTS: More RABV antigen was detected in furious rabies than paralytic in many of the CNS regions studied. Caudal-rostral polarity of viral antigen distribution was found in both clinical forms in order from greatest to least: spinal cord, brainstem, cerebellum, midline structures (caudate, thalamus), hippocampus, and cerebrum. In contrast, RABV RNA was most abundant in the cerebral midline structures. Viral RNA was found at significantly higher levels in the cerebral cortex, thalamus, midbrain and medulla of dogs with the furious subtype. The RNA levels in the spinal cord were comparable in both clinical forms. A striking inflammatory response was found in paralytic rabies in the brainstem. CONCLUSIONS: These observations provide preliminary evidence that RABV antigen and RNA levels are higher in the cerebrum in furious rabies compared to the paralytic form. In addition, brainstem inflammation, more pronounced in paralytic rabies, may impede viral propagation towards the cerebral hemispheres.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".