MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046050933 · doi:10.1111/jfd.13210

Cross‐sectional study of histopathology and piscine orthoreovirus during a marine production cycle of farmed Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i> L.) in British Columbia, Canada

2020· article· en· W3046050933 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gary D. Marty, Julie Bidulka, Tomy Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoHatcheryBiologyHistopathologyCohortFisheryFish hatcheryFish farmingVeterinary medicineAquacultureFish <Actinopterygii>Animal sciencePathologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two cohorts of farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in British Columbia, Canada, were sampled for histopathology (nine organs) and piscine orthoreovirus (PRV-1) PCR after seawater entry at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16 and 19 months (20 fish per cohort per date). One cohort-from a PRV+ hatchery-remained PRV+ throughout the study (sample prevalence 80%-100%). In an adjacent pen, the other cohort-from a PRV- hatchery-was 0% PRV+ at 78 days, 30% PRV+ at 128 days and ≥95% PRV+ thereafter. Among sample cohorts that were ≥80% PRV+, median Ct values were nominally less among fish sourced from the PRV- hatchery (28.7-33.3) than the PRV+ hatchery (30.8-35.2). No microscopic lesions were associated with PRV Ct value (minimum = 25.6). About 3% of fish in both cohorts had moderate inflammatory heart lesions; among these fish, only one had skeletal muscle inflammation (mild), and PRV Ct values were similar to unaffected cohorts sampled the same day. Also, among 16 moribund or freshly dead fish sampled opportunistically during the study, 14 were PRV+, and none had significant inflammatory heart lesions. These data support the hypothesis that British Columbia PRV-1 does not contribute to mortality.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish DiseasesSame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207