Canine echinococcosis screening in foxhound hunts in England and Wales using coproantigen ELISA and coproPCR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A total of eight foxhound packs in England and Wales were screened for Echinococcus species using a genus-specific coproantigen ELISA and for Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato and Echinococcus equinus by coproPCR. Main screening ( n = 364 hounds) occurred during 2010–2011 wherein a quarter (25.6%) of the foxhound fecal samples tested were Echinococcus coproantigen-positive (93/364). In total, five of eight (62.5%) hunts screened had coproantigen-positive hounds; coproantigen prevalence for individual foxhound packs ranged from 0 to 61.2% and was shown to be >30% in three hunts (in counties of Powys, Wales and Northumberland, England). Foxhound fecal samples from six of the eight tested hunts (four Welsh and two English hunts) were positive by coproPCR for E. granulosus s.l (including one sequence confirmation of E. granulosus sensu stricto) and E. equinus DNA. Analysis of hunt questionnaire data suggested that there was an association between poor foxhound husbandry, especially feeding practices and Echinococcus coproantigen prevalence. Clearer guidelines regarding the risk of canine echinococcosis are required for safe management of foxhound hunts in England and Wales.
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".