Demographics and travel history of imported and autochthonous cases of leishmaniosis in dogs in the United States and Canada, 2006 to 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leishmania infantum infections are reported in foxhounds throughout the United States (US) and Canada, but only rarely in other dog breeds. A seroprevalence report from 2006 documented leishmaniosis in foxhounds (8.9%) tested in the US between 2000 and 2003. All other breeds were seronegative. OBJECTIVE: To reexamine demographics and travel history of L. infantum-infected dogs in the US and Canada, we hypothesize detection of L. infantum in more foxhounds than nonfoxhounds and that infected nonfoxhounds will have traveled to endemic regions. ANIMALS: A total of 125 dogs positive for L. infantum by immunofluorescent antibody, PCR, or both. METHODS: Retrospective, descriptive study of L. infantum-infected dogs between 4 January 2006 and 22 May 2019. Travel history and known lineage to foxhounds was collected from questionnaires. RESULTS: Leishmania infantum was detected in 125 (6.4%) of 1961 dogs tested between 4 January 2006 and 22 May 2019, of which 10 (8%) were foxhounds and 115 (92%) were nonfoxhound breeds. Travel history available for 69 (55%) dogs showed 60 (86.9%) dogs had traveled outside of the US or Canada. Nine (13%) dogs had not traveled outside of the US or Canada, 5 of which were nonfoxhounds. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The majority of L. infantum cases were detected in nonfoxhounds, many of which had traveled to L. infantum-endemic countries, and several nonfoxhound breeds had no travel history. Leishmania surveillance should be considered for dogs that return from L. infantum-endemic regions to monitor emergence of this zoonotic disease in the US and Canada.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".