MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250103991 · doi:10.1139/z00-028

Effects of canine heartworm (<i>Dirofilaria immitis</i>) on body condition and activity of free-ranging coyotes (<i>Canis latrans</i>)

2000· article· en· W4250103991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benjamin N. Sacks, Karen M Blejwas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirofilaria immitisCanisBiologyDirofilariasisAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineZoologyHelminthsEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used radiotelemetry to study relationships among canine heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis) infection, body condition, and activity of free-ranging coyotes (Canis latrans). Average body mass at death was lower for 17 coyotes in a high-intensity infected group (mean = 33.6 heartworms) than for 18 coyotes in a control group (mean = 3.6 heartworms; p &lt; 0.01). Coyotes in the infected group lost body mass at an average rate of 20% per year relative to the control group (p &lt; 0.01). Bone marrow fat was negatively correlated with heartworm burden (R 2 = 0.27; p &lt; 0.01). Average body mass of coyotes at initial capture (i.e., potentially before infection) did not differ between infected and control groups (p = 0.90; 1–β = 0.70). Activity was negatively correlated with heartworm burden during the last 2 months of life (R 2 = 0.30; p &lt; 0.01), but no correlation was found 2–4 months before death. Activity of the infected group (n = 13) declined over time (p = 0.01), whereas no difference in activity was observed in the control group (n = 13; p = 0.50). Our findings indicate that heartworm infection reduced body condition and activity of coyotes but that nutritional status did not significantly affect susceptibility to infection.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicParasitic Diseases Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207