Characterizing the phylogenetic specialism–generalism spectrum of mammal parasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of parasites across mammalian hosts is complex and represents a differential ability or opportunity to infect different host species. Here, we take a macroecological approach to investigate factors influencing why some parasites show a tendency to infect species widely distributed in the host phylogeny (phylogenetic generalism) while others infect only closely related hosts. Using a database on over 1400 parasite species that have been documented to infect up to 69 terrestrial mammal host species, we characterize the phylogenetic generalism of parasites using standard effect sizes for three metrics: mean pairwise phylogenetic distance (PD), maximum PD and phylogenetic aggregation. We identify a trend towards phylogenetic specialism, though statistically host relatedness is most often equivalent to that expected from a random sample of host species. Bacteria and arthropod parasites are typically the most generalist, viruses and helminths exhibit intermediate generalism, and protozoa are on average the most specialist. While viruses and helminths have similar mean pairwise PD on average, the viruses exhibit higher variation as a group. Close-contact transmission is the transmission mode most associated with specialism. Most parasites exhibiting phylogenetic aggregation (associating with discrete groups of species dispersed across the host phylogeny) are helminths and viruses.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".