The Common Shrew ( <i>Sorex araneus</i> ): A Neglected Host of Tick-Borne Infections?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the importance of rodents as reservoirs for a number of tick-borne infections is well established, comparatively little is known about the potential role of shrews, despite them occupying similar habitats. To address this, blood and tick samples were collected from common shrews (Sorex araneus) and field voles (Microtus agrestis), a known reservoir of various tick-borne infections, from sites located within a plantation forest in northern England over a 2-year period. Of 647 blood samples collected from shrews, 121 (18.7%) showed evidence of infection with Anaplasma phagocytophilum and 196 (30.3%) with Babesia microti. By comparison, of 1505 blood samples from field voles, 96 (6.4%) were positive for A. phagocytophilum and 458 (30.4%) for Ba. microti. Both species were infested with the ticks Ixodes ricinus and Ixodes trianguliceps, although they had different burdens: on average, shrews carried almost six times as many I. trianguliceps larvae, more than twice as many I. ricinus larvae, and over twice as many nymphs (both tick species combined). The finding that the nymphs collected from shrews were almost exclusively I. trianguliceps highlights that this species is the key vector of these infections in this small mammal community. These findings suggest that common shrews are a reservoir of tick-borne infections and that the role of shrews in the ecology and epidemiology of tick-borne infections elsewhere needs to be comprehensively investigated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".