MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791080369 · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03332-7

Role of monkeys in the sylvatic cycle of chikungunya virus in Senegal

2018· article· en· W2791080369 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Benjamin M. Althouse, Mathilde Guerbois, Derek A. T. Cummings, Ousmane M. Diop, Ousmane Faye, Abdourahmane Faye, Diawo Diallo, Bakary Djilocalisse Sadio, Abdourahmane Sow, Oumar Faye, Amadou A. Sall, Mawlouth Diallo, Brenda R. Benefit, Evan A. Simons, Douglas M. Watts, Scott C. Weaver, Kathryn A. Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsChikungunyaArbovirusEnzooticBiologyVirologyVirusHost (biology)Transmission (telecommunications)PopulationZoologyEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arboviruses spillover into humans either as a one-step jump from a reservoir host species into humans or as a two-step jump from the reservoir to an amplification host species and thence to humans. Little is known about arbovirus transmission dynamics in reservoir and amplification hosts. Here we elucidate the role of monkeys in the sylvatic, enzootic cycle of chikungunya virus (CHIKV) in the region around Kédougou, Senegal. Over 3 years, 737 monkeys were captured, aged using anthropometry and dentition, and tested for exposure to CHIKV by detection of neutralizing antibodies. Infant monkeys were positive for CHIKV even when the virus was not detected in a concurrent survey of mosquitoes and when population immunity was too high for monkeys alone to support continuous transmission. We conclude that monkeys in this region serve as amplification hosts of CHIKV. Additional efforts are needed to identify other hosts capable of supporting continuous circulation.

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 score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations89
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207