MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080297322 · doi:10.1089/vbz.2012.1195

Rats, Cities, People, and Pathogens: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Literature Regarding the Ecology of Rat-Associated Zoonoses in Urban Centers

2013· review· en· W2080297322 on OpenAlexafffund
Chelsea G. Himsworth, Kirbee L. Parsons, Claire M. Jardine, David M. Patrick

Bibliographic record

VenueVector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMinistry of AgricultureUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBartonellaBiologyEcologyBartonellosisPublic healthZoonosisZoologyVirologyImmunologyMedicineBartonella henselae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban Norway and black rats (Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus) are the source of a number of pathogens responsible for significant human morbidity and mortality in cities around the world. These pathogens include zoonotic bacteria (Leptospira interrogans, Yersina pestis, Rickettsia typhi, Bartonella spp., Streptobacillus moniliformis), viruses (Seoul hantavirus), and parasites (Angiostrongylus cantonensis). A more complete understanding of the ecology of these pathogens in people and rats is critical for determining the public health risks associated with urban rats and for developing strategies to monitor and mitigate those risks. Although the ecology of rat-associated zoonoses is complex, due to the multiple ways in which rats, people, pathogens, vectors, and the environment may interact, common determinants of human disease can still be identified. This review summarizes the ecology of zoonoses associated with urban rats with a view to identifying similarities, critical differences, and avenues for further study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations380
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVector-Borne and Zoonotic DiseasesSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207