MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The first detection of Babesia genotype from tick at Alataw Pass, China-Kazakhstan border

2016· article· en· W3030703577 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dan Luo, Xiaoping Yin, Andong Wang, Yanhe Tian, Zhen Liang, Te Ba, Zhang JiangGuo

Bibliographic record

VenueChin J Endemiol · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBabesia18S ribosomal RNABiologyTickGenotypePhylogenetic treeVeterinary medicinePolymerase chain reactionHomology (biology)VirologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate the infection state and genotype of Babesia from tick at Alataw port, the China-Kazakhstan border. Methods Drag-flag method and animal body surface method were used to collect ticks at Ebinur Lake wetland, Alataw port. 18s rRNA gene of Babesia was tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the sequence analysis was conducted with Blast and phylogenetic analysis was conducted with Mega 6.0. Results The positive rate of Babesia gene in ticks was 12.65% (32/253) at Alataw port. By sequencing, 32 sequences were divided in ALSK174, ALSK191, ALSK019 three groups. Analysis of Blast showed that ALSK174 had the highest homology with Babesia caballi (EU888904, South Africa), it was 99.72% (356/357); ALSK191 had the highest homology with Babesia occultans (KP745626, Turkey), it was 99.72% (350/351); ALSK019 had 95.76% (339/354) homology with Babesia odocoilei (KC460321, Canada). Conclusion In this study, we have first reported that the Babesia is infected from ticks at Alataw port, the China-Kazakhstan border. Key words: Babesia; Hyalomma asiaticum asiaticum; Haemaphysalis erinacei; Polymerase chain reaction

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChin J EndemiolSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207