Comparison of influenza<scp>A</scp>virus infection in high‐ and low‐birth‐weight pigs using morphometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epigenetic studies have shown that low-birth-weight (LBW) and growth restriction has been associated with reduced immune function in humans and reduced passive immunity in pigs. To examine the immune responses of high-birth-weight (HBW) and LBW groups of pigs, influenza A virus infection was used as an exemplifier of neonatal respiratory disease. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were (i) to compare clinical, immunological, and pathological outcome of influenza infection in HBW to LBW pigs and (ii) to establish standardized sampling sites, score each site independently with set criteria, and compare scores between sites. METHODS: Sixty-eight 4-week-old pigs originating from either HBW or LBW litters were intratracheally inoculated with 10(6.3) TCID50 /ml of A/swine/Texas/4199-2/1998 H3N2 and euthanized 48 hours later. Samples were collected 2.5 cm from the tip of both cranial and middle lung lobes. The formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections were scored in a blinded manner by a single pathologist using established scoring criteria for routine and immunohistochemical stains. Clinical parameters, lung and nasal swab virus titers, and cytokine levels for interferon-alpha and interleukin-1-beta, IL-6, and IL-8 were measured. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Lung lesion severity and influenza staining intensity were significantly lower in LBW compared with HBW pigs (P < 0.05). Additionally, examining just the LBW group, the significant difference between lobes (P = 0.009) showed that the mean score for the right cranial lung lobe was higher compared with the other three lobes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".