RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEUKOCYTES AND HEPATOZOON SPP. IN GREEN FROGS, RANA CLAMITANS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are few published data on amphibian leukocyte profiles, and relationships between amphibian leukocytes and parasites are even less well known. Using counts from 35 pairs of blood smears taken 2 days apart, we tested for correlations between leukocyte proportions and infection intensities of Hepatozoon spp. (either Hepatozoon catesbianae or Hepatozoon clamatae) in green frogs (Rana clamitans). On average (SE), we counted 65.4 (1.7) lymphocytes, 14.0 (1.3) neutrophils, 19.3 (1.6) eosinophils, 0.9 (0.1) monocytes, and 0.4 (0.1) basophils per 100 leukocytes. All frogs harbored Hepatozoon spp. (median seven parasites per 100 leukocytes; range 1-250). Significant relationships were not observed between numbers of leukocytes and infection intensities of Hepatozoon spp. Among the possible explanations for these null results are that Hepatozoon spp. is benign, that Hepatozoon spp. is able to evade detection by the immune system, that Hepatozoon spp. is able to manipulate leukocyte investment, or that other unmeasured or undetected parasites were more important in affecting immune response.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".