MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W284618672

Clonal distribution of an atypical MRP+, EF*, and suilysin+ phenotype of virulent Streptococcus suis serotype 2 strains in Brazil.

2003· article· en· W284618672 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriela Martínez, Antônio Fernando Pestana de Castro, Keila Jordão Ribeiro Pagnani, Gerson Nakazato, Wanderley Dias da Silveira, Marcelo Gottschalk

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStreptococcal Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerotypeStreptococcus suisBiologyVirulenceMicrobiologyPhenotypeVirologyGeneticsGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Streptococcus suis is considered one of the most important bacterial swine pathogens worldwide. The distribution of the 35 described serotypes in diseased animals may vary in different regions. Data regarding S. suis isolation from pigs in South America is not available. In the present study, 51 isolates of S. suis recovered in pure culture or as the predominant species from diseased animals in Brazil, were analyzed. These isolates were classified as serotypes 2 (58.8%), 3 (21.5%), 7 (13.7%), 1 (3.9%), and 14 (2%). Serotype 2 isolates were further studied for their production of virulence-related proteins muramidase-released protein (MRP), extracellular factor (EF), and suilysin. In addition, the genetic diversity was studied by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA. All but 1 of the serotype 2 isolates showed a clonal distribution of an atypical phenotype (MRP+, EF*, suilysin+), different from the known European (MRP+, EF+, suilysin+), and North American (MRPv, EF-, suilysin-), phenotypes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicStreptococcal Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207