MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107463955 · doi:10.1603/ec12227

Evaluation of Lysozyme-HCl for the Treatment of Chalkbrood Disease in Honey Bee Colonies

2012· article· en· W2107463955 on OpenAlexafffund
Asami Haga, B. A. Keddie, Stephen F. Pernal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Bee Research Fund
KeywordsBiologyLysozymeBroodInoculationHoney beeBeekeepingSugarMicrobiologyLarvaFood scienceBotanyHorticultureBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chalkbrood, caused by Ascosphaera apis (Maassen and Claussen) Olive and Spiltor, is a cosmopolitan fungal disease of honey bee larvae (Apis mellifera L.) for which there is no chemotherapeutic control. We evaluated the efficacy of lysozyme-HCl, an inexpensive food-grade antimicrobial extracted from hen egg white, for the treatment of chalkbrood disease in honey bee colonies. Our study compared three doses of lysozyme-HCl in sugar syrup (600, 3,000, and 6,000 mg) administered weekly for 3 wk among chalkbrood-inoculated colonies, colonies that were inoculated but remained untreated, and colonies neither inoculated or treated. Lysozyme-HCl at the highest dose evaluated was found to suppress development of chalkbrood disease in inoculated colonies to levels observed in uninoculated, untreated colonies, and did not adversely affect adult bee survival or brood production. Honey production was significantly negatively correlated with increased disease severity but there were no significant differences in winter survival among treatment groups. Based on our results, lysozyme-HCl appears to be a promising, safe therapeutic agent for the control of chalkbrood in honey bee colonies.

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)0.000
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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207