A One Health approach to study the circulation of tick-borne pathogens: A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tick-borne pathogens (TBPs) have complex life cycles involving tick vectors and vertebrate hosts. However, there is limited empirical evidence on the zoonotic circulation of TBPs. In this study, we used a One Health approach to study the possible circulation of TBPs in ticks, animals and humans within a rural household in the foothills of the Fruška Gora mountain, northern Serbia. The presence of TBP DNA was assessed using microfluidic PCR (25 bacterial species, 7 parasite species, 5 bacterial genera, 3 parasite genera) in animal, human and tick samples and the presence of tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) RNA was screened for using RT-qPCR on tick samples. In addition, Lyme borreliosis serology was assessed in patients sera. Rhipicephalus sanguineus and Ixodes ricinus ticks were identified on dogs and Haemaphysalis punctata was identified on house walls. Rickettsia helvetica was the most common pathogen detected in pooled R. sanguineus and I. ricinus tick samples, followed by Hepatozoon canis. None of the H. punctata tick samples tested positive for the presence of TBPs. Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Rickettsia monacensis were the most frequent pathogens detected in dogs, followed by Rickettsia felis, whereas Anaplasma bovis was the only pathogen found in one of the goats tested. None of the human blood samples collected from family members tested positive for the presence of TBPs. Although microfluidic PCR did not detect Borrelia sp. in any of the tested tick or blood samples, a family member with a history of Lyme disease was seropositive for Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (s.l.). We conclude that, despite the presence of TBPs in tick and vertebrate reservoirs, there is no evidence of infection with TBPs across various components of the epidemiological chain in a rural Fruška Gora household.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".