Canine infection with Borrelia burgdorferi, Dirofilaria immitis, Anaplasma spp. and Ehrlichia spp. in Canada, 2013–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canine test results generated by veterinarians throughout Canada from 2013-2014 were evaluated to assess the geographical distribution of canine infection with Borrelia burgdorferi, Dirofilaria immitis, Ehrlichia spp., and Anaplasma spp. METHODS: The percent positive test results of 115,636 SNAP® 4Dx® Plus tests from dogs tested were collated by province and municipality to determine the distribution of these vector-borne infections in Canada. RESULTS: A total of 2,844/115,636 (2.5%) dogs tested positive for antibody to B. burgdorferi. In contrast, positive test results for D. immitis antigen and antibodies to Ehrlichia spp. and Anaplasma spp. were low, with less than 0.5% of dogs testing positive for any one of these three agents nationwide. Provincial seroprevalence for antibodies to B. burgdorferi ranged from 0.5% (Saskatchewan)-15.7% (Nova Scotia); the areas of highest percent positive test results were in proximity to regions in the USA considered endemic for Lyme borreliosis, including Nova Scotia (15.7%) and Eastern Ontario (5.1%). These high endemic foci, which had significantly higher percent positive test results than the rest of the nation (P < 0.0001), were surrounded by areas of moderate to low seroprevalence in New Brunswick (3.7%), Quebec (2.8%), and the rest of Ontario (0.9%), as well as northward and westward through Manitoba (2.4%) and Saskatchewan (0.5%). Insufficient results were available from the westernmost provinces, including Alberta and British Columbia, to allow analysis. CONCLUSION: Increased surveillance of these vector-borne disease agents, especially B. burgdorferi, is important as climate, vector range, and habitat continues to change throughout Canada. Using dogs as sentinels for these pathogens can aid in recognition of the public and veterinary health threat that each pose.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".