Assessing the spatial and temporal patterns and risk factors for acquisition of Ixodes spp. by companion animals across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climatic and land use changes have contributed to substantial changes in the abundance, distribution, and activity patterns of ticks in Canada, which have led to an increased risk of tick bites and tick-borne pathogen exposure for companion animals. The objectives of this study were to describe current spatial and temporal patterns of Ixodes spp. on companion animals in Canada and explore the association between tick bites and dog and cat demographic factors. Ticks were collected for one year (April 2019 - March 2020) from 94 veterinary clinics. Included with each submission was a short questionnaire containing owner-reported information on travel history, date of removal and suspected location of tick acquisition, and animal-specific demographic factors. Ticks were identified morphologically using a stereomicroscope, standard keys, and through PCR analyses. Mixed effect multivariable logistic regression models were built to explore the association between an Ixodes scapularis bite and animal demographic factors; veterinary clinic was included as a random effect. Approximately 2300 submissions were received from clinics across Canada, totalling 4425 ticks. The most common Ixodes spp. was I. scapularis (n = 2168), followed by Ixodes pacificus (n = 172) and Ixodes cookei (n = 155). Ixodes scapularis were well distributed in regions across central and eastern Canada. Ixodes cookei was found in eastern Canada, with the greatest numbers from Quebec and New Brunswick. Ixodes pacificus submissions were restricted to British Columbia. Across eastern Canada, dogs of the herding, mixed breed (large and small), sporting, working, terrier, and toy breed groups, and spayed cats were all found to have higher odds of acquiring I. scapularis, compared to other tick species. For the dog model, significant interactions were found between predictor variables age and sex. Regional information on tick distribution, seasonality, and risk factors for acquisition contribute to evidence-based veterinary practices for tick and tick-borne disease control in Canada.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".