MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179697605 · doi:10.1093/jmedent/42.3.397

Retention of<i>Escherichia coli</i>by House Fly and Stable Fly (Diptera: Muscidae) During Pupal Metamorphosis and Eclosion

2005· article· en· W2179697605 on OpenAlexaff
Kateryn Rochon, Tim Lysyk, L. Brent Selinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Entomology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuscidaeBiologyMetamorphosisPupaMuscaStable flyFlesh flyZoologyLarvaPhormia reginaEcologyCalliphoridaeStomoxys

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Populations of Escherichia coli obtained by feeding larval house flies, Musca domestica L. and stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans (L.), persisted through the pupal stage. The abundance of E. coli in house fly pupae increased initially then declined before adult emergence. Abundance of E. coli in stable fly pupae increased through pupal development and remained high. Infected stable fly pupal cases typically contained more E. coli than house fly pupal cases. A greater proportion of emerging adult house flies were infected with E. coli compared with stable flies; however, the abundance of E. coli on infected flies was similar between species. Adult flies contained 0.04-0.19% of the E. coli in the pupal cases. The proportion of infected house fly adults and the amount of E. coli on the infected flies were related to the levels of E. coli in the pupal cases; however, these relationships did not occur with the stable fly. Results suggest that retention of E. coli from larval to adult house flies could play a role in the transmission and spread of E. coli, whereas stable fly adults probably play a minor role in E. coli spread. However, pupae of both species have potential to act as reservoirs for E. coli.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EntomologySame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207