MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148377365 · doi:10.1086/426397

An Animal Model for the Tickborne Flavivirus—Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever Virus

2004· article· en· W2148377365 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R. Holbrook, Judith F. Aronson, Gerald A. Campbell, Steven J.M. Jones, Heinz Feldmann, Alan D.T. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal HealthHealth Canada
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsVirologyFlavivirusMedicineBiologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tickborne encephalitis (TBE) serocomplex of flaviviruses consists primarily of viruses that cause neurologic disease; these viruses include Omsk hemorrhagic fever virus (OHFV), a virus that is genetically related to other TBE serocomplex viruses but that circulates in an ecologically distinct niche and causes markedly different human disease. The objective of this study was to examine a potential small-animal model for OHFV and to compare the pathology of infection with that of the neurotropic tickborne flavivirus, Powassan virus (POWV). POWV-infected BALB/c mice demonstrated typical arboviral encephalitis, characterized by paresis and paralysis before death, and viral infection of the cerebrum, characterized by inflammation and necrosis. In contrast, lethal OHFV infection did not cause paralysis or significant infection of the cerebrum but showed marked involvement of the cerebellum. Distinct pathological results in the spleens suggest that the immune response in OHFV-infected mice is different from that in POWV-infected mice. This study demonstrates a clear pathological difference between OHFV-infected mice and POWV-infected mice and supports the use of the BALB/c mouse as a disease model for OHFV.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations66
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207