MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128455997 · doi:10.1017/s0031182005009583

High transmission rates restore expression of genetically determined susceptibility of mice to nematode infections

2006· article· en· W2128455997 on OpenAlexaff
Marilyn E. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueParasitology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicHelminth infection and control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeligmosomoides polygyrusBiologyParasite hostingNematodeTransmission (telecommunications)PhenotypeLarvaZoologyMicrobiologyImmunologyEcologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated why the susceptible or resistance phenotype to the nematode Heligmosomoides polygyrus was lost when susceptible (C57BL/6) and resistant (Balb/c) strains of mice were housed together in indoor arenas with continuous transmission of the parasite larvae present in peat trays (Scott, 1991). First, both strains expressed their normal phenotype when given a controlled challenge while living in arenas, and when experimentally infected with only 5 parasite larvae. To test whether chronic exposure to peat altered the resistance phenotype, mice were given a challenge infection while living on peat. C57BL/6 mice living on peat had higher egg production and higher worm numbers than Balb/c mice, except at 2 months post-challenge. Finally, natural transmission rates were increased in arena experiments through either regular replacement of arena mice with naïve mice or direct introduction of additional larvae. A transient difference in infection levels between strains was detected in response to a modest increase in transmission whereas a 10-fold increase in transmission allowed C57BL/6 mice to exhibit the typical profile of high egg production and elevated worm numbers. These data indicate that C57BL/6 mice are less able to regulate parasite numbers at high transmission rates compared with lower transmission rates.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParasitologySame topicHelminth infection and controlFrench-language works237,207