MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of monensin dose and treatment time on xenoma reduction in microsporidial gill disease in rainbow trout, <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i> (Walbaum)

2002· article· en· W2031876869 on OpenAlexafffund
Joy A. Becker, David J. Speare, J Daley, P. Dick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Diseases · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)University of Prince Edward Island
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAtlantic Veterinary College
KeywordsMonensinRainbow troutAnimal scienceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>ToxicologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objectives of the study were (1) to determine an acceptable dose of dietary monensin against microsporidial gill disease (MGD) of salmon caused by Loma salmonae and (2) to determine the life stage of L. salmonae at which the action of monensin was most effective at reducing clinical disease. Rainbow trout (RBT) were fed monensin diets at concentrations of 0, 10, 100, 1000 and 5000 ppm starting 1 week before per os exposure to L. salmonae infected gill material. Lethal sampling occurred at weeks 6, 7, 8 and 9 post‐exposure (PE). The acceptable dose of dietary monensin was determined to be 1000 ppm because it was the lowest concentration that produced a significant and constant reduction in xenoma formation. RBT were fed monensin at 1000 ppm beginning at 0, 1, 2 and 3 weeks before exposure and at 1, 2 and 3 weeks after exposure and continuing until week 9 PE. Fish in which treatment was initiated at the time of exposure or 1 week before, showed the greatest reduction in xenoma production when compared with the untreated RBT.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish DiseasesSame topicParasitic Infections and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207