MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165991939 · doi:10.1354/vp.44-5-663

Ultrastructural Examination of the Host Cellular Response in the Gills of Atlantic Salmon, <i>Salmo salar</i>, with Amoebic Gill Disease

2007· article· en· W2165991939 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Lovy, Joy A. Becker, David J. Speare, D Wadowska, Glenda M. Wright, Mark D. Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Pathology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsGillBiologyUltrastructureMucusElectron microscopeCytoplasmSalmoCell biologyPathologyAnatomyEcologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gills from Atlantic salmon with experimentally induced amoebic gill disease (Neoparamoeba spp.) were examined with transmission electron microscopy to assess pathology and host-cell responses. Amoebae were found either on the surface epithelium or with pseudopodia extending deeply into invaginations of epithelial cells. The amoebae had various densities along the plasma membrane and contained electron-dense deposits within their cytoplasm. Surface epithelial cells sloughed from the gills and had features consistent with apoptosis, including rounded shape, loss of surface microridges, and hypercondensation of nuclear chromatin. Affected areas of gills had fusion of secondary lamellae with interlamellar spaces occupied by mitotic epithelial cells and eosinophils. Eosinophils contained abundant fusiform-shaped granules that measured approximately 1 microm long and 360 nm wide. The granule consisted of an electron-dense matrix with a central inclusion that was less electron-dense, consisting of particulate and fibrillar material. In many instances, the central inclusion appeared empty and 90% of the eosinophils had morphology suggestive of piecemeal degranulation. Also observed within affected areas were a few neutrophils, mucous cells releasing mucus, and a small number of dendritic-like cells.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary PathologySame topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207