MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088467377 · doi:10.1017/s1466252308001461

Porcine circoviruses: a minuscule yet mammoth paradox

2008· review· en· W2088467377 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheela Ramamoorthy, Xiang‐Jin Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Health Research Reviews · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorcine circovirusImmunosuppressionOutbreakDiseaseVirologyCircovirusEnteropathyVirusImmunologyBiologyEnteritisWeanlingPneumoniaMedicinePathologyInternal medicineMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) is the primary causative agent for porcine circovirus-associated disease (PCVAD). PCVAD has been the cause of considerable economic losses to the pork industry worldwide. The disease is primarily characterized by wasting, enlarged lymph nodes, jaundice and weight loss in affected weanling pigs. Several other complex syndromes involving reproductive failure, enteritis, pneumonia and necrotizing dermatitis have also been associated with PCV2 infection. Lymphoid depletion, which is the hallmark lesion of PCVAD, predisposes the host to immunosuppression. Disease progression is further complicated by co-infections with other bacterial and viral pathogens. Despite the availability of effective vaccines for the last 2 years, newly emerging strains of the virus have been reported to cause more severe outbreaks in parts of the USA and Canada. While knowledge of the biology and pathogenesis of PCV2 has progressed considerably over the last 12 years since the disease was recognized, many questions still remain to be answered.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.722
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations110
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Health Research ReviewsSame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207