MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2435806569

Prevalence and risk factors for Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., Coxiella burnetii, and Newcastle disease virus in feral pigeons (Columba livia) in public areas of Montreal, Canada.

2016· article· en· W2435806569 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vanessa Gabriele-Rivet, Julie‐Hélène Fairbrother, Donald Tremblay, Josée Harel, Nathalie Côté, Julie Arsenault

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCampylobacterBiologySalmonellaCoxiella burnetiiQ feverCampylobacter jejuniVeterinary medicineVirologyMicrobiologyBacteriaMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feral pigeons (Columbia livia) can harbor a range of zoonotic pathogens. A transversal study was undertaken to estimate the prevalence of feral pigeons infected by various pathogens in public areas in Montreal, Quebec. Cloacal swabs from captured birds were cultured for Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. and tested by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of Coxiella burnetii. An oropharyngeal swab was also submitted to real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RRT-PCR) for the detection of Newcastle disease virus. Among the 187 pigeons tested from 10 public areas, 9.1% (95% CI: 3.0 to 15.2) were positive for Campylobacter spp. with all strains identified as Campylobacter jejuni. The Campylobacter status of birds was not associated with individual characteristics of birds, with the exception of body score. None of the pigeons tested positive for the other pathogens. Direct or indirect contacts with feral pigeons may constitute a potential risk for Campylobacter infection in humans.

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)0.001
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 score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207