MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068387436 · doi:10.1638/2011-0150.1

Low Sensitivity of Antemortem Gill Biopsies For the Detection of Subclinical<i>Pseudodactylogyrus bini</i>Infestations in American Eels (<i>Anguilla rostrata</i>)

2012· article· en· W2068387436 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvain Larrat, Jill Marvin, Stéphane Lair

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySubclinical infectionGillParasite hostingFish <Actinopterygii>Anguilla rostrataAnatomyZoologyPhysiologyFisheryVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were twofold: to determine the sensitivity of gill biopsies used for the screening of Pseudodactylogyrus bini in subclinically infested American eels (Anguilla rostrata) and to evaluate the effect of bath anesthesia on the proportion of infested eels. Fifty-four eels were euthanized following either intracoelomic injection of T61 or deep anesthesia with tricaine methanesulfonate. Proportions of eels infested by P. bini diagnosed by gill biopsies taken through the gill slit and by microscopic examination of the entire gill arches were compared. The euthanasia protocol had no significant effect on parasite abundance. The prevalence of monogeneans detected by examination of nonterminal antemortem gill biopsies and by complete gill examinations was 20% and 70%, respectively. The sensitivity of gill biopsies (29%) to detect P. bini in subclinically infested eels is therefore low, and should be used for group screening rather than individual screening.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Zoo and Wildlife MedicineSame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207