MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561041566 · doi:10.5376/mp.2016.07.0001

The Prevalence of Fascioliasis among Slaughtered Cattle in Akure, Nigeria

2016· article· en· W2561041566 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olajide Joseph Afolabi, Fayokemi Christianah Olususi

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Pathogens · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicHelminth infection and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVeterinary medicineGeographySocioeconomicsMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was undertaken in Akure, Ondo State to determine the prevalence of fascioliasis among slaughtered cattle in Akure metropolis. The faecal samples of the slaughtered cattle were examined for the eggs and adult of the Fasciola spp using flotation method and viewed with X40 magnification of binocular microscope. Examination of the adult flukes from the infected liver was done by making length wise incisions of the ventral side of the liver in order to cut open the bile duct. Of the 905 male and female slaughtered cattle examined for fascioliasis infection in the study area, a total prevalence of 7.07% (n=64) was observed. Prevalence of the disease between genders revealed that the female cattle were more susceptible (8.53%) to the disease than the male cattle (5.73%). F. gigantica was identified to be the most predominant species in the study area with prevalence of 84.38% compare to F. hepatica (1.56%). This study indicated that prevalence of fascioliasis is low in the study area but there is still need for adequate environmental and veterinary health enlightenment programmes about this infection to completely eradicate the disease and further improve the quality of meat supply to the consumers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular PathogensSame topicHelminth infection and controlFrench-language works237,207