MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255519042 · doi:10.3382/ps/pev119

A survey of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synovaie with avian influenza H9 subtype in meat-type chicken in Jordan between 2011–2015

2015· article· en· W2255519042 on OpenAlexaff
Dergham A. Roussan, Ghassan Y. Khawaldeh, Ibrahim Shaheen

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsCargill (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlockMycoplasma synoviaeMycoplasma gallisepticumInfluenza A virus subtype H5N1BroilerBiologyVirologyPoultry farmingAvian influenza virusMycoplasmaVeterinary medicineMicrobiologyMedicineVirusAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commercial chickens in Jordan suffer from respiratory disease of undetermined etiology. This study was designed to document the involvement of avian influenza virus (AIV) H9 subtype, Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG), and Mycoplasma synoviae (MS) in this respiratory disease. In this study, trachea swabs from 350 commercial broiler chicken flocks that suffered from respiratory disease were tested for AIV H9 subtype by using reverse transcription (RT)-PCR and for MG and MS by using PCR. PCR and RT-PCR results showed that 23.7, 8.9, and 6.6% of these flocks were infected with AIV H9 subtype, MS, and MG, respectively, whereas 12.9 and 5.7% of these flocks were infected with both AIV H9 subtype and MS and AIV H9 subtype and MS, respectively. Furthermore, 42.3% of these flocks were negative for the above mentioned respiratory diseases. Further epidemiological studies are recommended to determine risk factors and evaluate the economic consequences of AIV H9 subtype, MG, and MS infections in the region. Furthermore, studies are required to isolate AIV H9 subtype, MG, and MS and develop vaccines against the local field isolates.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207