MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096114653 · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.2003.69.484

GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SOME SPECIES GROUPS WITHIN THE GENUS LUTZOMYIA (DIPTERA: PSYCHODIDAE)

2003· article· en· W2096114653 on OpenAlexaff
Dara G. Torgerson, Margarita Lampo, YELITZA VELÁZQUEZ, Patrick T. K. Woo

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPsychodidaeMonophylyLutzomyiaCladeZoologyCytochrome bGenusGenetic variationEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsMitochondrial DNALeishmaniasisGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular data on Lutzomyia are very scarce, despite the fact that this genus includes all the species involved in the transmission of leishmaniasis in America. We examine the genetic relationships among eight morphologic groups within the Lutzomyia genus and two Brumptomyia species, using nine enzyme loci and the last 285 basepairs of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene. The structure of the genetic variation among the species analyzed indicated a closer genetic relationship among members of a morphologic group than between members of different groups. The lower levels of variation recorded among these groups compared with that between Brumptomyia and Lutzomyia suggest a subgeneric status for all of these groups, including Psychodopygus. A maximum likelihood tree for the allozyme data and a neighbor-joining consensus tree for the mitochondrial DNA sequences showed a general agreement with morphologic groups, with only minor differences. Nyssomyia, Verrucarum and Micropygomyia formed separate monophyletic groups. Lutzomyia could not be separated from Psathyromyia, and both Migonei species, L. dubitans and L. migonei, grouped in different clades according to the host species they are found on.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and HygieneSame topicResearch on Leishmaniasis StudiesFrench-language works237,207