MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776188491 · doi:10.3390/v9120393

Biology of Porcine Parvovirus (Ungulate parvovirus 1)

2017· review· en· W2776188491 on OpenAlexaff
István Mészáros, Ferenc Olasz, Attila Cságola, Peter Tijssen, Zoltán Zádori

Bibliographic record

VenueViruses · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNational Research, Development and Innovation Office
KeywordsParvovirusBiologyParvoviridaeUngulateVirologyPorcine parvovirusCanine parvovirusVirusEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Porcine parvovirus (PPV) is among the most important infectious agents causing infertility in pigs. Until recently, it was thought that the virus had low genetic variance, and that prevention of its harmful effect on pig fertility could be well-controlled by vaccination. However, at the beginning of the third millennium, field observations raised concerns about the effectiveness of the available vaccines against newly emerging strains. Subsequent investigations radically changed our view on the evolution and immunology of PPV, revealing that the virus is much more diverse than it was earlier anticipated, and that some of the "new" highly virulent isolates cannot be neutralized effectively by antisera raised against "old" PPV vaccine strains. These findings revitalized PPV research that led to significant advancements in the understanding of early and late viral processes during PPV infection. Our review summarizes the recent results of PPV research and aims to give a comprehensive update on the present understanding of PPV biology.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.067 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations100
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirusesSame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207