MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Roles of <i>Clostridium difficile</i> and Enterotoxigenic <i>Clostridium perfringens</i> in Diarrhea in Dogs

2001· article· en· W2091810693 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Scott Weese, Henry R. Staempfli, John F. Prescott, Steven A. Kruth, Spencer J. Greenwood, H. Weese

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsGuelph General HospitalGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)University of Guelph
FundersOVC Pet Trust
KeywordsClostridium perfringensMedicineDiarrheaClostridium difficileClostridiumEnterotoxigenic Escherichia coliMicrobiologyClostridialesClostridiaceaeEnterotoxinGastroenterologyBacteriaAntibioticsToxinBiologyEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this prospective study, feces of dogs with diarrhea were compared with feces of normal dogs for the presence of Clostridium difficile, C difficile toxins A and B, C perfringens, and C perfingens enterotoxin (CPE). C difficile toxins A, B, or both were present in feces of 18 of 87 (21%) dogs with diarrhea and 4 of 55 (7%) normal dogs (P = 0.03), whereas CPE was present in the feces of 24 of 87 (28%) dogs with diarrhea and 3 of 55 (5%) normal dogs (P = 0.01). C difficile was isolated from 2 of 87 (2%) dogs with diarrhea but was not isolated from the feces of 55 normal dogs, possibly because of poor survival of the organism in fecal samples. C perfringens was isolated from the feces of 23 of 24 (96%) CPE-positive dogs with diarrhea, 52 of 63 (83%) CPE-negative dogs with diarrhea, and 39 of 55 (71%) CPE-negative dogs with normal feces. No correlation was found between C perfringens spore number and the presence of CPE.

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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations152
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Internal MedicineSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207