<i>Coxiella Burnetii</i> Infection is Associated with Placentitis in Cases of Bovine Abortion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A positive score on a modified acid-fast (MAF)-stained smear test of fresh placenta was used to identify a group of bovine abortion submissions believed to be infected with Coxiella burnetii. Immunohistochemical (IHC) testing for Coxiella and Chlamydia antigens was performed on 14 MAF smear-positive cases as well as 29 MAF smear-negative cases received during the study period. Nine MAF smear-positive cases as well as 1 MAF smear-negative case were Coxiella-positive via the IHC test. No placentas were positive for Chlamydia antigen. Various histopathologic features were categorized for all placentas and the presence or absence of selected risk categories was also graded for each case. The results between Coxiella IHC-positive cases and Coxiella IHC-negative/MAF-negative cases were compared using Fisher's exact test (P value at 95% confidence). Significant associations were found between Coxiella IHC-positive cases and the presence of placental inflammation (P = 0.0027), placental necrosis (P = 0.012), fetal pneumonia (P = 0.0152), and the visibility of Coxiella-like organisms within trophoblasts on hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections (P < 0.0001). Histopathologic features of Coxiella IHC-positive placentas included infiltration of the chorionic stroma by mononuclear cells, necrosis of chorionic trophoblasts, and focal exudation of fibrin and neutrophils. The results indicate that MAF smears are a good screening tool for the presence of Coxiella in placentas from bovine abortion cases and that the detection of this pathogen in aborted placentas via traditional staining or IHC methods is usually associated with placentitis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".