MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053898899 · doi:10.7589/0090-3558-48.1.176

Blood Collection from the Facial (Maxillary)/Musculo-Cutaneous Vein in True Frogs (Family Ranidae)

2012· article· en· W2053898899 on OpenAlexaff
María J. Forzán, Raphaël Vanderstichel, Christopher T. Ogbuah, John R. Barta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Diseases · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphAcadia UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBlood collectionAnatomyVeinTympanum (architecture)AmphibianDorsumSurgeryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collection of blood from amphibians, as in other classes of vertebrate animals, is essential to evaluate parameters of health, diagnose hemoparasitism, identify viral and bacterial pathogens, and measure antibodies. Various methods of blood collection have been described for amphibians. Most can be cumbersome (venipucture of femoral vein, ventral abdominal vein or lingual venus plexus) or result in pain or deleterious health consequences (cardiac puncture and toe-clipping). We describe an easy and practical technique to collect blood from frogs and toads that can be used in multiple species and is minimally invasive. The technique consists of puncturing either the facial or, less commonly, the musculo-cutaneous vein and collecting the blood with a capillary tube. These veins run dorsal and parallel to the maxillary bone and can be accessed by quick insertion and withdrawal of a needle through the skin between the upper jawline and the rostral or caudal side of the tympanum. The needle should be of 27 or 30 gauge for anurans weighing more or less than 25 g, respectively. Although the technique has been used by some amphibian researchers for years, it is little known by others and has never been fully described in a peer-reviewed publication.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife DiseasesSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207