MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508374662 · doi:10.3390/v8080220

Spinal Cord Ventral Horns and Lymphoid Organ Involvement in Powassan Virus Infection in a Mouse Model

2016· article· en· W2508374662 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rodrigo I. Santos, Meghan E. Hermance, Benjamin B. Gelman, Saravanan Thangamani

Bibliographic record

VenueViruses · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsSpinal cordBiologyAnatomyVirusLymphatic systemVirologyImmunologyPathologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Powassan virus (POWV) belongs to the family Flaviviridae and is a member of the tick-borne encephalitis serogroup. Transmission of POWV from infected ticks to humans has been documented in the USA, Canada, and Russia, causing fatal encephalitis in 10% of human cases and significant neurological sequelae in survivors. We used C57BL/6 mice to investigate POWV infection and pathogenesis. After footpad inoculation, infected animals exhibited rapid disease progression and 100% mortality. Immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence revealed a very strong neuronal tropism of POWV infection. The central nervous system infection appeared as a meningoencephalitis with perivascular mononuclear infiltration and microglial activation in the brain, and a poliomyelitis-like syndrome with high level of POWV antigen at the ventral horn of the spinal cord. Pathological studies also revealed substantial infection of splenic macrophages by POWV, which suggests that the spleen plays a more important role in pathogenesis than previously realized. This report provides a detailed description of the neuroanatomical distribution of the lesions produced by POWV infection in C57BL/6 mice.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.322
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirusesSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207