MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The canine and feline skin microbiome in health and disease

2013· article· en· W2163514422 on OpenAlex
J. Scott Weese

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Dermatology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobiomeDiseasePopulationMedicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)BiologyPathologyBioinformaticsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The skin harbours a diverse and abundant, yet inadequately investigated, microbial population. The population is believed to play an important role in both the pathophysiology and the prevention of disease, through a variety of poorly explored mechanisms. Early studies of the skin microbiota in dogs and cats reported a minimally diverse microbial composition of low overall abundance, most probably as a reflection of the limitations of testing methodology. Despite these limitations, it was clear that the bacterial population of the skin plays an important role in disease and in changes in response to both infectious and noninfectious diseases. Recent advances in technology are challenging some previous assumptions about the canine and feline skin microbiota and, with preliminary application of next-generation sequenced-based methods, it is apparent that the diversity and complexity of the canine skin microbiome has been greatly underestimated. A better understanding of this complex microbial population is critical for elucidation of the pathophysiology of various dermatological (and perhaps systemic) diseases and to develop novel ways to manipulate this microbial population to prevent or treat disease.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · 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