MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141144274 · doi:10.2298/abs1004091k

Helminth fauna of Rattus norvegicus Berkenhout, 1769 from the Belgrade area, Serbia

2010· article· en· W2141144274 on OpenAlexaff
Dragan Kataranovski, Milena Kataranovski, Isidora Deljanin

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Biological Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHymenolepis diminutaHelminthsCapillariaFaunaCestodaTrematodaParasite hostingVeterinary medicineZoologyJuvenileNippostrongylus brasiliensisTrichurisHymenolepis nanaEcologyCestode infections

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this study were to provide baseline knowledge about intestinal parasites in Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) that inhabit the Belgrade area, and to analyze the associations among helminths. Of 302 trapped rats, 52% were females and 48% males, with 39% and approx. 37% of juvenile-subadult individuals, per sex, respectively. The following parasites were detected (with their respective prevalence): Cestoda - Hymenolepis diminuta (30.46%) and Rodentolepis fraterna (12.58%); Nematoda - Heterakis spumosa (36.75%), Nippostrongylus brasiliensis (16.22%), Capillaria sp. (5.96%), Trichuris muris (5.96%), Syphacia muris (4.30%) and Strongylus sp. larvae (0.33%). Flukes (Trematoda) were not recorded. Of all examined rats, 68.54% were found to harbor at least one parasite species, with higher prevalence in male hosts and in adult individuals. There were no age-related differences in the prevalence of infection with individual helminth species. Multiple infections occurred with up to four species per rat showing different combinations of parasite infections. These are the first records of the gastrointestinal helminth fauna of Norway rats in Serbia.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Biological SciencesSame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207