MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923419316 · doi:10.1177/2055116919838083

Prevalence of heartworm infection in the feral cat population of Grand Cayman

2019· article· en· W2923419316 on OpenAlexaff
Brandy Darby, Charles Dickinson, Lori A. Gaskins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Open Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCATSMedicinePopulationDirofilaria immitisSerologyVeterinary medicinePathologyHelminthsInternal medicineAntibodyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the presence and prevalence of heartworm infection in the feral cat population of Grand Cayman. METHODS: During the study period, feral cats were routinely trapped and euthanized for population control by the municipal animal shelter. Cats older than 6 months of age were obtained for post-mortem examination shortly after euthanasia. The heart, lungs, pulmonary vasculature, thoracic and abdominal cavities were examined for the presence, location and number of mature heartworms. Sections of caudal lung were evaluated histologically and serologic tests were performed to screen for additional evidence of heartworm exposure. RESULTS: Mature heartworms were identified in the pulmonary vasculature of 4/36 cats (11.1%). An additional nine cats showed histopathologic changes in the lungs consistent with heartworm exposure, and one cat had a positive antibody test. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results indicate a minimum heartworm prevalence of 11.1% within this population of feral cats, consistent with published necropsy reports from other endemic localities. Considering the histopathologic changes observed in this group, the true prevalence is likely higher and underscores the importance of heartworm prevention for the companion cat population of the island.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Open ReportsSame topicParasitic Diseases Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207