MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097331383 · doi:10.1177/104063871102300231

<i>Porcine Teschovirus</i> Polioencephalomyelitis in Western Canada

2011· article· en· W2097331383 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mônica Weissmann Seabra Salles, S. F. E. Scholes, Malte Dauber, Günter Strebelow, Chris Wojnarowicz, Lori E. Hassard, Andy C. Acton, Trent K. Bollinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirologyPorcine circovirusVirusPseudorabiesParesisPorcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virusBiologyEncephalitisAntibodyParalysisImmunohistochemistryMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning in 2002, a small number of pig farms in western Canada began reporting 4-7-week-old pigs with bilateral hind-end paresis or paralysis. Low numbers of pigs were affected, some died, most had to be euthanized, and those that survived had reduced weight gains and neurological deficits. Necropsies revealed no gross lesions, but microscopic lesions consisted of a nonsuppurative polioencephalomyelitis, most severe in the brain stem and spinal cord. The lesions were most consistent with a viral infection. Tests for circovirus, Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, coronavirus, Rabies virus, and Pseudorabies virus were negative. Using immunohistochemistry, virus neutralization, fluorescent antibody test, and nested reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, Porcine teschovirus was identified in tissues from affected individuals. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report of teschovirus encephalitis in western Canada and the first reported case of polioencephalomyelitis in pigs in Canada, where teschovirus was confirmed as the cause.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationSame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207