Internal parasitic burdens in brown rats (Rattus norvegicus) from Grenada, West Indies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identified the endoparasites in Brown rat ( Rattus norvegicus) during May to July 2017 in Grenada, West Indies. A total of 162 rats, 76 females and 86 males were trapped from St. George and St. David parishes in Grenada. The collected fecal samples were examined for parasitic eggs and/or oocysts using simple fecal flotation technique. Adult parasites found in the intestinal tract were examined for identification. The overall prevalence of intestinal parasites among rats was 79 %. Ten helminth species were recovered, several of which were reported for the first time in rodents in Grenada. The internal parasites consist of seven nematodes ( Angiostrongylus spp., Nippostrongylus braziliensis , Heterakis spumosa , Strongyloides ratti , Aspiculuris tetraptera , Syphacia spp. and Protospirura spp.), one cestode ( Hymenolepsis diminuta ), one acanthocephalan ( Moniliformis moniliformis ) and one protozoa species ( Eimeria spp.). The most prevalent zoonotic species were Angiostrongylus spp. (35.2%), Hymenolepsis diminuta (7.4%) and Moniliformis moniliformis (3.1%). Several nonzoonotic endoparasites; which included Nippostrongylus braziliensis (50.6%), Heterakis spumosa (15.4%), Strongyloides ratti (43.2%), Aspiculuris tetraptera (2.5%), Syphacia spp . (1.9%), Protospirura spp. (1.2%) and Eimeria spp. (4.7%) were also identified. The most prevalent parasites were Nippostrongylus brasiliensis (50.6%), Strongyloides ratti (43.2%) and Angiostrongylus spp. (35.2%). Co-infections occurred with up to six species per rat showing different combinations of parasitic infections.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".