MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952428867 · doi:10.1111/zph.12613

<i>Clostridium difficile</i> shedding by healthy dogs in Nigeria and Malawi

2019· article· en· W2952428867 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Scott Weese, Philip P. Mshelbwala, Frederic Lohr

Bibliographic record

VenueZoonoses and Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian HIV Trials Network, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsClostridium difficileTransmission (telecommunications)Veterinary medicineBiologyLivestockClostridiumMicrobiologyMedicineBacteriaAntibioticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence and characteristics of Clostridium difficile shedding in owned dogs in Nigeria and Malawi. Clostridium difficile was isolated from 31/120 (26%) dogs in Nigeria and 11/92 (12%) dogs in Malawi (p = 0.012). Overall, 22/42 (52%) isolates were toxigenic; 17/31 (55%) from Nigeria and 5/11 (45%) from Malawi. All toxigenic isolates possessing tcdA and tcdB, and only one also possessed cdtA/B. Sixteen different ribotypes were found, ten (63%) of which were non-toxigenic. Most isolates corresponded to ribotypes that have been previously identified in humans or livestock. The role of dogs in transmission of C. difficile and the clinical implications of C. difficile shedding in dogs remain unclear. These data indicate that dogs could act as a source of C. difficile for exposure of other species, including humans; however, the true risk is unknown. Further study of the ecology of C. difficile and the role of dogs in disease of humans and other domestic animals is indicated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoonoses and Public HealthSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207