MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108920910 · doi:10.7589/0090-3558-44.3.569

A NOVEL CLINICAL SYNDROME AND DETECTION OF ANAPLASMA OVIS IN MONGOLIAN REINDEER (RANGIFER TARANDUS)

2008· article· en· W2108920910 on OpenAlexafffund
J. C. Haigh, Victoria Gerwing, Janchivdorj Erdenebaatar, Janet E. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Diseases · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsBiologyOvisAnaplasmaVeterinary medicineHerdPolymerase chain reactionZoologyVirologyTickGeneAnimal scienceEcologyGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tsaatan (or Dhuka) peoples of northern-western Mongolia are one of the few remaining reindeer-herding cultural groups in the world. Recently a disease condition that involves sudden death of reindeer and cases involving fever, lethargy, and pale mucous membranes has been reported. Examination of blood smears collected in the 2005 field season resulted in the identification of intra-erythrocytic inclusions resembling Anaplasma spp. in smears from clinically sick animals. Using universal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers for the amplification of the 60 kDa chaperonin gene (cpn60, also known as hsp60 or groEL), we detected sequences corresponding to Anaplasma ovis in reindeer blood samples. Species-specific PCR primers for A. ovis were designed and validated and used to screen blood samples from Mongolian reindeer. Screening of 66 blood samples collected in the 2006 field season resulted in the detection of A. ovis in 80% of the samples. Our results indicate a high prevalence of A. ovis in the Tsaatan reindeer herds and an association with clinical disease that is likely to be anaplasmosis. To our knowledge this is the first report of natural A. ovis infection in reindeer.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations37
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife DiseasesSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207