Prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis infection among shelter cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis infection among shelter cats. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. ANIMALS: 239 cats euthanatized at an animal shelter in southeastern Michigan. PROCEDURE: A gross necropsy focusing on the thoracic cavity, heart, lungs, and pulmonary vessels was performed within 5 hours after cats were euthanatized. Blood was collected directly from the heart of cats found to be infected and tested, using a filter test for microfilariae. Serum was tested for D immitis antigens by use of 2 antigen detection kits and for D immitis-specific antibodies by use of 2 antibody detection kits. RESULTS: Cats ranged from approximately 4 months to 15 years old. Adult D immitis were found in 6 (2.5%) cats. Blood could not be recovered from 1 of the cats with heartworm infection. For the 5 other cats, results of the filter test were negative, and results of both antigen and both antibody tests were positive. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that cats living in an urban area in the northern part of the United States have a low prevalence of adult D immitis infection. However, this is likely to be an underestimate of the true prevalence of infection, because no attempts were made to identify cats infected with larval or juvenile stages of D immitis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".