MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078183095 · doi:10.2460/javma.2003.223.482

Identification of foals infected with Parascaris equorum apparently resistant to ivermectin

2003· article· en· W2078183095 on OpenAlexaffabout
F. Patrick D. Hearn, Andrew S. Peregrine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicHelminth infection and control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Hearst
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIvermectinFecesDewormingVeterinary medicineHorseBiologyAnimal scienceHelminthsMedicineMicrobiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During September 2002, routine fecal examinations performed on 16 Thoroughbred foals residing on a farm outside Toronto, Ontario, Canada, revealed low to moderate numbers of Parascaris equorum eggs in feces from 9 of the 16. All foals were then treated with ivermectin at a dose of 220 to 280 microg/kg (100 to 127 microg/lb), p.o., and fecal egg counts were repeated 12 days later. Fecal P. equorum egg counts increased between the first and second fecal examination in 7 foals, were unchanged in 1, and decreased in 5. Fecal samples were collected 13 days after treatment from 21 additional foals that had been treated with ivermectin at the same dose, and P. equorum eggs were detected in 12 of the 21. For all 37 foals, high P. equorum egg counts (> or = 100 eggs/g of feces) 12 to 13 days after ivermectin treatment were significantly more likely in foals that had been regularly treated with ivermectin since birth and permanently resided on the farm, compared with foals that had been treated with other anthelmintics or had an unknown deworming history. Collectively, these data suggested that P. equorum in these foals was resistant to ivermectin administered at the recommended dose.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations117
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical AssociationSame topicHelminth infection and controlFrench-language works237,207