MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036985976 · doi:10.1080/03079450020023249

Assessment of the pathogenicity of an emu-origin influenza A H5 virus in ostriches (<i>Struthio camelus</i>)

2001· article· en· W2036985976 on OpenAlexafffund
Alfonso Clavijo, J. Riva, John Copps, Y. Robinson, En‐Min Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueAvian Pathology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health
FundersCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsCloacaBiologyStruthioProventriculusVirologyVirusAir sacsInfluenza A virus subtype H5N1GooseBursa of FabriciusGizzardQuailSpleenIleumImmunologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ostriches were inoculated with a laboratory-derived highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus of emu origin, A/emu/TX/39924/93 (H5N2) clone c1B. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pathogenicity of this isolate for ostriches and assess the ability of routine virological and serological tests to detect infection. Avian influenza virus (AIV) was isolated from cloacal and tracheal swabs from 2 to 12 days post-infection. AIV was also isolated from brain, thymus, eyelid, spleen, ovary/testis, liver, air sac, proventriculum, duodenum, caecal tonsil, heart, pancreas, kidney, nasal gland and lung. Virus isolation was also possible from swabs of the luminal surfaces of the cloaca, jejunum, lower ileum, bursa of Fabricius, trachea and bone marrow. Birds seroconverted as early as 7 days post-infection. This study suggests that HPAI virus of emu origin replicates extensively in infected ostriches without causing significant clinical disease or mortality.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvian PathologySame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207