MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Immunophenotype of Blood and Cerebrospinal Fluid Mononuclear Cells in Dogs

2002· article· en· W4254694245 on OpenAlexafffund
Cristiane Duque, J. Parent, Dorothee Bienzle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBarrier Structure and Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsMedicineCerebrospinal fluidImmunophenotypingCD14Peripheral blood mononuclear cellPathologyImmunologyFlow cytometryAntibodyIn vitroBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflammatory neurologic diseases are common in dogs, but establishing a definitive diagnosis often is difficult. Nucleated cell number and type in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rarely are suggestive of an etiologic agent. We speculated that CSF leukocyte immunophenotyping would be a useful adjunct in the investigation of canine inflammatory neurologic diseases by yielding more specific etiologic information. The goals of this study were to establish the feasibility of flow cytometric evaluation of individual canine CSF samples and to identify the cell distribution in healthy dogs. The mononuclear cell populations of paired blood and CSF samples from 23 healthy dogs were characterized by labeling of cells with antibodies against CD4, CD8α, CD21, and CD14 molecules and by flow cytometric analysis of their expression. The mean proportion of CD4+ and CD21+ cells was significantly higher in blood than in the CSF (P < .002 and P < .001, respectively). In contrast, the mean proportion of CD14+ and CD8α+ cells was not significantly different between blood and CSF (P= .5 and p= .9, respectively). These findings demonstrate differences in the distribution and function of mononuclear cells in the circulating venous and subarachnoid compartments in the dog.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Internal MedicineSame topicBarrier Structure and Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207