Comparaison entre les frottis directs et les cultures bactériologiques effectués à partir de prélèvements trachéaux chez l'espèce équine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to assess the relation between the direct smear observations and bacteriological results carried out on equine tracheal secretions. A total of 304 cases comprising both the direct smear (Gram stain) and the bacteriological culture, over a period of 8 years, were submitted to this retrospective study. Most of the specimens (78%) were obtained using tracheal washings while the rest (22%) originated from tracheal brushings. A total of 96 specimens (32%) were negative for both direct smear and culture. The positive predictive value of direct smears appeared high (81-96%) while the negative predictive value was lower (48-79%). Sensitivity of direct smear was considered as low and varied from 24 to 46% for tracheal brushings and from 41 to 46% for tracheal washings. Specificity of direct smear was high for both types of specimens. Results of this study indicate that the use of Gram-stained smear examination, carried out on tracheal secretions, is a technique which is specific but not very sensitive for the prediction of bacteriological culture results. Moreover, the use of tracheal washing, more than tracheal brushing, seems to increase the sensitivity of the test.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".