MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224041099 · doi:10.1101/2022.04.13.486902

Evaluation of oral baits and distribution methods for Tasmanian devils ( <i>Sarcophilus harrisii</i> )

2022· preprint· en· W4224041099 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Dempsey, Ruth J. Pye, Amy T. Gilbert, Nicholas M. Fountain‐Jones, Jennifer M. Moffat, Sarah Benson‐Amram, Timothy J. Smyser, Andrew S. Flies

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAustralian Research CouncilUniversity of Tasmania
KeywordsWildlifeBiologyPopulationContext (archaeology)Brushtail possumWildlife managementZoologyEcologyMarsupialMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Context Diseases are increasingly contributing to wildlife population declines. Tasmanian devil ( Sarcophilus harrisii ) populations have locally declined by 82% largely due to the morbidity and mortality associated with two independent transmissible devil facial tumours (DFT1 and DFT2). Toxic baits are often used as a management tool for controlling vertebrate pest populations in Australia, but in other areas of the world oral baits are also used to deliver vaccines or pharmaceuticals to wildlife. Oral vaccine bait products have been distributed for more than 50 years at a landscape scale to protect wildlife from rabies virus and contributed to the elimination of fox rabies from more than ten European nations. An oral bait vaccine to protect against devil facial tumours has been proposed as a management tool to improve the population health, resiliency and fitness of wild Tasmanian devils. Aim Our goal was to evaluate the potential use of edible baits as vehicles for vaccine delivery to Tasmanian devils. Method We tested placebo versions of baits that are already used in Australia. Key results Captive devils consumed all types of placebo baits but exhibited a preference for ruminant- and fish-based baits. Captive devils also consumed inert capsules inserted into placebo baits. Bait fate trials in the field revealed that baits were generally removed within 24 hours. Tasmanian pademelons ( Thylogale billardierii ), brushtail possums ( Trichosurus vulpecula ), and Eastern quolls ( Dasyurus viverrinus ) were the most common nontarget bait competitors at six private properties in southern Tasmania; wild devils removed approximately 5% of ground baits at these sites. We also evaluated an automated bait dispenser, which reduced nontarget uptake and resulted in over 50% of the baits being removed by devils. Conclusions This study demonstrates that captive and wild devils will accept and consume placebo versions of commercial baits. Bait dispensers or modified baits or baiting strategies are needed to increase bait uptake by devils. Implications Bait dispensers can be used at a regional scale to deliver baits to Tasmanian devils. These could act as vehicles for preventive or therapeutic vaccines to mitigate the impacts of disease on devil populations. Short summary This study aimed to test oral baits as potential vaccine delivery vehicles for Tasmanian devils. Captive and wild devils consumed placebo versions of commercial baits used on mainland Australia. Abundant non-target species, such as brushtail possums, Tasmanian pademelons, and eastern quolls consumed most baits in the wild. Implementation of automated bait dispensers increased bait uptake by devils to over 50% at the same regional field sites.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207