MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986239053

Hematology and biochemistry reference intervals for Ontario commercial nursing pigs close to the time of weaning.

2017· article· en· W2986239053 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda M. Perri, Terri L O'Sullivan, John C. S. Harding, R. Darren Wood, Robert Friendship

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerdMedicineHematologyAnimal scienceConfidence intervalInternal medicineGynecologyBiologyVeterinary medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evaluation of pig hematology and biochemistry parameters is rarely done largely due to the costs associated with laboratory testing and labor, and the limited availability of reference intervals needed for interpretation. Within-herd and between-herd biological variation of these values also make it difficult to establish reference intervals. Regardless, baseline reference intervals are important to aid veterinarians in the interpretation of blood parameters for the diagnosis and treatment of diseased swine. The objective of this research was to provide reference intervals for hematology and biochemistry parameters of 3-week-old commercial nursing piglets in Ontario. A total of 1032 pigs lacking clinical signs of disease from 20 swine farms were sampled for hematology and iron panel evaluation, with biochemistry analysis performed on a subset of 189 randomly selected pigs. The 95% reference interval, mean, median, range, and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for each parameter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations90
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207