MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322821649 · doi:10.3354/dao02338

Detection of VHSV IVb within the gonads of Great Lakes fish using in situ hybridization

2011· article· en· W2322821649 on OpenAlexafffund
Lowia Al-Hussinee, JS Lumsden

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of Aquatic Organisms · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsBiologyRainbow troutOvaryMinnowIn situ hybridizationZoologyIridovirusYolkAnatomyVirusVirologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Messenger RNAEndocrinologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus (VHSV) genotype IVb was recently detected as the cause of numerous mortality events in Great Lakes fish. In situ hybridization was used to examine the gonads from 13 fish, including freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens and muskellunge Esox masquinongy that were infected naturally, as well as rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss and fathead minnows Pimphales promelas, which were experimentally infected. Although the ovaries and testes of fish infected by VHSV IVb had few lesions, viral RNA was present in the ovaries of the rainbow trout and fathead minnow and was abundant in the gonads of muskellunge and in the ovaries of freshwater drum. Viral RNA was present mainly surrounding yolk vacuoles/granules or adjacent to the germinal vesicle, with lesser amounts found within the germinal vesicle, in the mesovarium and/or tunica albuginea and blood vessels of the ovary. Viral RNA was also found in and surrounding primary and secondary spermatocytes of the muskellunge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of Aquatic OrganismsSame topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207