MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951932021 · doi:10.3390/v11050396

Evaluating the Within-Host Dynamics of Ranavirus Infection with Mechanistic Disease Models and Experimental Data

2019· article· en· W2951932021 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph R. Mihaljevic, Amy L. Greer, Jesse L. Brunner

Bibliographic record

VenueViruses · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAmerican Association of Zoo VeterinariansCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaAssociation of Zoos and AquariumsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRanavirusViral replicationHost (biology)BiologyReplication (statistics)Immune systemViral pathogenesisVirologyDynamics (music)Computational biologyVirusImmunologyGeneticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanistic models are critical for our understanding of both within-host dynamics (i.e., pathogen replication and immune system processes) and among-host dynamics (i.e., transmission). Within-host models, however, are not often fit to experimental data, which can serve as a robust method of hypothesis testing and hypothesis generation. In this study, we use mechanistic models and empirical, time-series data of viral titer to better understand the replication of ranaviruses within their amphibian hosts and the immune dynamics that limit viral replication. Specifically, we fit a suite of potential models to our data, where each model represents a hypothesis about the interactions between viral replication and immune defense. Through formal model comparison, we find a parsimonious model that captures key features of our time-series data: The viral titer rises and falls through time, likely due to an immune system response, and that the initial viral dosage affects both the peak viral titer and the timing of the peak. Importantly, our model makes several predictions, including the existence of long-term viral infections, which can be validated in future studies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirusesSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207