MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014123668 · doi:10.1089/vbz.2004.4.198

West Nile Virus Infection Rates in Pooled and Individual Mosquito Samples

2004· article· en· W2014123668 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stephanie A. Condotta, Fiona F. Hunter, Michael Bidochka

Bibliographic record

VenueVector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCenters for Disease Control and PreventionOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsCulex pipiensWest Nile virusBiologyCulexVirologyOutbreakVector (molecular biology)VirusVeterinary medicineEcologyMedicineLarvaGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The detection of West Nile virus (WNV) in mosquitoes by real-time RT-PCR provides valuable information on the epidemiology of the virus and identifies mosquito species that are potential vectors. Testing sets of pooled mosquitoes of the same species is logistically the easiest and most cost-effective approach for WNV testing; however, little information is available on how the results of small pooled sets relate to those of testing individual mosquitoes. During the 2002 outbreak, we compared pooled and individual samples of two mosquito species (Culex pipiens and Culex restuans) collected from three Health Unit regions in Ontario, Canada. Significantly more Cx. restuans were infected with WNV compared to Cx. pipiens. We show that with pool sizes of five individuals both MIR (minimum infection rates) and MLE (maximum likelihood estimation) values were acceptable in estimating infection rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations40
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVector-Borne and Zoonotic DiseasesSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207