Evaluation of cattle for experimental infection with and transmission of Brucella suis biovar 4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether cattle can become persistently infected with Brucella suis biovar 4, whether the organism can be transmitted vertically or horizontally, and whether tests for bovine brucellosis are diagnostic. DESIGN: Observational study. ANIMALS: 24 pregnant cows and their calves and 6 bulls. PROCEDURE: Cows and bulls were housed separately in groups of 6 with each group consisting of 3 cattle experimentally infected with B suis biovar 4 and 3 naïve animals. Cattle were observed for clinical signs daily; blood samples were collected weekly. Clotted blood from each sample was submitted for bacterial culture. Serum was tested with an indirect ELISA and the standard tube agglutination test (STAT), buffered plate agglutination test, brucellosis card test (BCT), and complemen't fixation test (CFT). Tissues collected at necropsy were submitted for bacterial culture and histologic examination. RESULTS: All 15 inoculated cattle seroconverted on 2 or more serologic tests, and bacteria were isolated from 4 inoculated cows at necropsy. There was no bacteriologic evidence of vertical or horizontal transmission, and none of the cattle developed clinical abnormalities or gross or histologic lesions. Results of the indirect ELISA were positive for all inoculated cattle. The other tests gave variable results; the CFT, STAT, and BCT yielded negative results for at least 1 of the 4 cattle from which the organism was isolated. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that cattle-to-cattle transmission of B suis biovar 4 is unlikely. Serologic tests for bovine brucellosis should be used cautiously when attempting to identify cattle with rangiferine brucellosis, as they do not discriminate between the 2 diseases and vary in their ability to detect exposed cattle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".