MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2390458998 · doi:10.1177/1040638716646806

Cilia-associated bacteria in fatal <i>Bordetella bronchiseptica</i> pneumonia of dogs and cats

2016· article· en· W2390458998 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled Taha-Abdelaziz, Laura Bassel, Melanie L. Harness, Mary E. Clark, Karen B. Register, Jeff Caswell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBordetella bronchisepticaPneumoniaPathologyMedicineMicrobiologyBiologyBacteriaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bordetella bronchiseptica frequently causes nonfatal tracheobronchitis, but its role in fatal pneumonia is less recognized. Our study evaluated histologic identification of cilia-associated bacteria as a method for diagnosis of B. bronchiseptica pneumonia. Cases of fatal bronchopneumonia were studied retrospectively, excluding neonates and cases of aspiration pneumonia, minor lung lesions, or autolysis. The study population comprised 36 canine and 31 feline cases of bronchopneumonia. B. bronchiseptica was identified in 8 of 36 canine and 14 of 31 feline cases based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) using serum from a rabbit hyperimmunized with pertactin, PCR testing (Fla2/Fla12), and/or bacterial culture data when available. Of these, IHC was positive in 4 canine and 7 feline cases, PCR was positive in 8 canine and 14 feline cases, and B. bronchiseptica was isolated in 2 of 5 canine and 3 of 9 feline cases tested. Examination of histologic sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin revealed bronchial cilia-associated bacteria in 4 of 36 canine and 5 of 31 feline cases; these were all positive by IHC and PCR. The presence of cilia-associated bacteria had been noted in the pathology report for only 2 of these 9 cases. Thus, the presence of cilia-associated bacteria seems frequently overlooked by pathologists, but is a diagnostically significant feature of B. bronchiseptica pneumonia. A specific diagnosis of B. bronchiseptica pneumonia is important because it suggests primary or opportunistic bacterial pneumonia rather than aspiration pneumonia, and because of the risk of animal-to-animal transmission of B. bronchiseptica, the availability of vaccines for disease prevention, and the potential zoonotic risk to immunocompromised pet owners.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207