MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327024147 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2016.00030

Use of Genomic Tools to Improve Cattle Health in the Context of Infectious Diseases

2016· review· en· W2327024147 on OpenAlexafffund
Mikolaj Raszek, Le Luo Guan, Graham Plastow

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyUniversity of Alberta
FundersGenome AlbertaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates Bio SolutionsAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyGenome Canada
KeywordsLivestockContext (archaeology)DiseaseBiotechnologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Antibiotic resistanceBiologyAntibioticsIntensive care medicineMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although infectious diseases impose a heavy economic burden on the cattle industry, the etiology of many disorders that affect livestock is not fully elucidated, and effective countermeasures are often lacking. The main tools available until now have been vaccines, antibiotics and antiparasitic drugs. Although these have been very successful in some cases, the appearance of parasite and microbial resistance to these treatments is a cause of concern. Next-generation sequencing provides important opportunities to tackle problems associated with pathogenic illnesses. This review describes the rapid gains achieved to track disease progression, identify the pathogens involved, and map pathogen interactions with the host. Use of novel genomic tools subsequently aids in treatment development, as well as successful creation of breeding programs aimed toward less susceptible livestock. These may be important tools for mitigating the long term effects of combating infection and helping reduce the reliance on antibiotic treatment.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207