MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985657234 · doi:10.1111/jfd.12086

Differential characterization of emerging skin diseases of rainbow trout – a standardized approach to capturing disease characteristics and development of case definitions

2013· article· en· W1985657234 on OpenAlexaff
Birgit Oidtmann, Scott E. LaPatra, David W. Verner–Jeffreys, M Pond, E. J. Peeler, Patricia A. Noguera, D. W. Bruno, Sophie St‐Hilaire, Carla B. Schubiger, Kevin Snekvik, Margaret Crumlish, Darren M. Green, Matthijs Metselaar, H. D. Rodger, Heike Schmidt‐Posthaus, Marco Galeotti, Stephen W. Feist

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Diseases · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
KeywordsRainbow troutConfusionBiologyDiseaseFisheryVariety (cybernetics)EtiologyFish <Actinopterygii>PathologyComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Farmed and wild salmonids are affected by a variety of skin conditions, some of which have significant economic and welfare implications. In many cases, the causes are not well understood, and one example is cold water strawberry disease of rainbow trout, also called red mark syndrome, which has been recorded in the UK since 2003. To date, there are no internationally agreed methods for describing these conditions, which has caused confusion for farmers and health professionals, who are often unclear as to whether they are dealing with a new or a previously described condition. This has resulted, inevitably, in delays to both accurate diagnosis and effective treatment regimes. Here, we provide a standardized methodology for the description of skin conditions of rainbow trout of uncertain aetiology. We demonstrate how the approach can be used to develop case definitions, using coldwater strawberry disease as an example.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish DiseasesSame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207