MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136488824 · doi:10.3390/pathogens10030383

Molecular Detection and Identification of Chlamydiaceae in the Eyes of Wild and Domestic Ruminant Hosts from Northern Spain

2021· article· en· W3136488824 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Dias‐Alves, Óscar Cabezón, Nicole Borel, Jorge Ramón Lopez‐Olvera, Gregorio Mentaberre, Santiago Lavı́n, Xavier Fernández‐Aguilar

Bibliographic record

VenuePathogens · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
KeywordsOvisBiologyRuminantChlamydiaChlamydophilaChlamydiaceaePathogenSerotypeChlamydia trachomatisChlamydiaeVeterinary medicineVirologyMicrobiologyImmunologyEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infections by Chlamydiae are associated with ocular disease in humans and animals. In this study, the presence and diversity of Chlamydia spp. was assessed in diseased and healthy eyes of domestic sheep and wild ruminants that share mountain habitats in northern Spain. The presence of Chlamydia spp. was tested by real-time PCR in 1786 conjunctival swabs collected from both eyes of 893 animals from mountain habitats in northern Spain, and chlamydial species were identified in the positive samples by ArrayTube microarray methods. Chlamydial DNA was detected in 0.6% (CI95% 0.2–1.3) of the Pyrenean chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica) and 1.4% (CI95% <0.01–8.1) of the sheep (Ovis aries) sampled, with Chlamydia pecorum the only chlamydial species identified. No association of C. pecorum with ocular disease or co-infection with Mycoplasma conjunctivae was found. Further studies on the pathogenesis of infectious keratoconjunctivitis are needed to better understand the ecology of C. pecorum and its possible role as a ruminant pathogen at the wildlife–livestock interface.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathogensSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207