Pathogenicity Comparison Between the Kikwit and Makona Ebola Virus Variants in Rhesus Macaques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhanced virulence and/or transmission of West African Ebola virus (EBOV) variants, which are divergent from their Central African counterparts, are suspected to have contributed to the sizable toll of the recent Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak. This study evaluated the pathogenicity and shedding in rhesus macaques infected with 1 of 2 West African isolates (EBOV-C05 or EBOV-C07) or a Central African isolate (EBOV-K). All animals infected with EBOV-C05 or EBOV-C07 died of EVD, whereas 2 of 3 EBOV-K-infected animals died. The viremia level was elevated 10-fold in EBOV-C05-infected animals, compared with EBOV-C07- or EBOV-K-infected animals. More-severe lung pathology was observed in 2 of 6 EBOV-C05/C07-infected macaques. This is the first detailed analysis of the recently circulating EBOV-C05/C07 in direct comparison to EBOV-K with 6 animals per group, and it showed that EBOV-C05 but not EBOV-C07 can replicate at higher levels and cause more tissue damage in some animals. Increased virus shedding from individuals who are especially susceptible to EBOV replication is possibly one of the many challenges facing the community of healthcare and policy-making responders since the beginning of the outbreak.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".