Prevalence of Parasitic Infections in Buffaloes in and around Ludhiana District, Punjab, India: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 598 buffaloes were sampled for both coprological (210) and haematological (388) investigations at the Large Animal Clinics, GADVASU, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. Coprological examination revealed that the overall prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) parasitic infections was 23.33% (49/210). Among the revealed parasites, amphistomes, Fasciola spp., Eimeria spp., Balantidium coli and strongyles were in 4.29, 3.33, 0.95, 2.86 and 15.71% of the examined buffaloes. Except coccidiosis, there was no significant variation of GI infections in relation to sex. Eimeria spp. was significantly higher in males. The present work emphasized that strongyles were the most prevalent gastrointestinal parasites found during coprological examination of buffaloes in Punjab, India. Examination of Giemsa-stained peripheral blood smears exhibited that 4.9% (19/388) of buffaloes were infected with haemoparasites comprising Theileria annulata (2.32%), Trypanosoma evansi (1.8%), Babesia bigemina (0.26%) and Anaplasma marginale (0.77%). Mixed infection appeared in one (0.26%) animal. Trypanosomosis was predominant in elder animals with no infection recorded in males.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".