Trematodes and snails: an intimate association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trematode parasites share an intimate relationship with their gastropod intermediate hosts, which act as the vehicle for their development and transmission. They represent an enormous economic and medical burden in developing countries, stimulating much study of snail–trematode interactions. Laboratory-maintained snail–trematode systems and in vitro cell cultures are being used to investigate the molecular dialogue between host and parasite. These dynamic and finely balanced antagonistic relationships, in which parasites strongly influence the physiology of the host, are highly specific and may occasionally demonstrate co-speciation. We consider the mechanisms and responses deployed by trematodes and snails that result in compatibility or rejection of the parasite, and the macroevolutionary implications that they may effect. Although for gastropods the fossil record gives some insight into evolutionary history, elucidation of trematode evolution must rely largely upon molecular approaches, and for both, such techniques have provided fresh and often surprising evidence of their origins and dispersal over time. Co-evolution of snails and trematodes is becoming increasingly apparent at both cellular and population levels; the implications of which are only beginning to be understood for disease control. Untangling the complex interactions of trematodes and snails promise fresh opportunities for intervention to relieve the burden of parasitic disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".