The Epidemiology of Borrelia burgdorferi in Horses in Ontario and Assessment of Serologic Testing Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this thesis were to determine the seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum antibodies in horses in Ontario, identify demographic and management factors associated with B. burgdorferi seropositivity and compare the ability of a point-of-care ELISA to a Multiplex ELISA to detect B. burgdorferi antibodies over time. Serum samples from 551 horses from 76 veterinary clinics were submitted along with 473 accompanying questionnaires filled out by the owners of the horses. The overall prevalence of B. burgdorferi seropositivity for horses on at least one test was 17% (91/551). The odds of being seropositive were increased by the presence of oak trees near the horses’ pastures. A high-risk cluster was also identified in Eastern Ontario. Performing regular checks for ticks was associated with decreased odds of seropositivity. Agreement between the two ELISA tests was fair (kappa=0.23) and horses remained seropositive one year after initial testing on both tests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".