MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011238669 · doi:10.1111/vcp.12229

Laboratory blood analysis in Strigiformes—Part I: hematologic reference intervals and agreement between manual blood cell counting techniques

2015· article· en· W2011238669 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Clinical Pathology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsVineland Research and Innovation CentreUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: While hematologic reference intervals (RI) are available for multiple raptorial species of the order Accipitriformes and Falconiformes, there is a lack of valuable hematologic information in Strigiformes that can be used for diagnostic and health monitoring purposes. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to report RI in Strigiformes for hematologic variables and to assess agreement between manual cell counting techniques. METHODS: A multi-center prospective study was designed to assess hematologic RI and blood cell morphology in owl species. Samples were collected from individuals representing 13 Strigiformes species, including Great Horned Owl, Snowy Owl, Eurasian Eagle Owl, Barred Owl, Great Gray Owl, Ural Owl, Northern Saw-Whet Owls, Northern Hawk Owl, Spectacled Owl, Barn Owl, Eastern Screech Owl, Long-Eared Owl, and Short-Eared Owl. Red blood cell count was determined manually using a hemocytometer. White blood cell count was determined using 3 manual counting techniques: (1) phloxine B technique, (2) Natt and Herrick technique, and (3) estimation from the smear. Differential counts and blood cell morphology were determined on smears. Reference intervals were determined and agreement between methods was calculated. RESULTS: Important species-specific differences were observed in blood cell counts and granulocyte morphology. Differences in WBC count between species did not appear to be predictable based on phylogenetic relationships. Overall, most boreal owl species exhibited a lower WBC count than other species. Important disagreements were found between different manual WBC counting techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements observed between manual counting techniques suggest that technique-specific RI should be used in Strigiformes.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.285 · 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