MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052977639 · doi:10.4102/jsava.v83i1.938

Avian bornavirus genotype 4 recovered from naturally infected psittacine birds with proventricular dilatation disease in South Africa

2012· article· en· W2052977639 on OpenAlexaff
Robert D. Last, Herbert Weißenböck, Nora Nedorost, H. L. Shivaprasad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the South African Veterinary Association · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsCascades (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenotypeBiologyGastrointestinal tractPathologyImmunohistochemistryPolymerase chain reactionVirologyEncephalitisTransmission (telecommunications)GeneGeneticsMedicineImmunologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occurrence of proventricular dilatation disease caused by avian bornavirus (ABV) in captive psittacine birds has long been suspected in South Africa. This report documents the first detection by polymerase chain reaction and gene sequence analyses of ABV from three clinical cases of proventricular dilatation disease (PDD) in captive bred blue and gold macaws (Araara rauna) resident in this country. Lymphoplasmacytic encephalitis, gastrointestinal myenteric gangioneuritis and leiomyositis were the most prominent histopathological changes and ABV genotype 4 was detected in tissues from all three birds. Immunohistochemical stains for ABV antigen revealed positive labelling of neurons and glial cells of the brain, myenteric ganglia and nerve fibres as well as smooth muscle cells of the gastrointestinal tract of all three birds. In one bird, positive labelling of the peripheral nerves was observed. The identical sequence of the analaysed genome fragment of all three samples, history that all of these birds had originated from the same breeding facility, and young age at presentation raise the question of possible vertical transmission.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the South African Veterinary AssociationSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207