PREVALENCE AND CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EHRLICHIA CANIS INFECTION IN DOGS IN THUA THIEN HUE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survey was carried out at OKADA PET Veterinary Center, Hue City, with 935 dogs of different ages and breeds. The results show that 39.6% of dogs have the clinical signs of Ehrlichia canis (E. canis) infection, 95.7% of which were serologically positive for E. canis antibody. The results also indicate that 54.9% of dogs have E. canis morulae in monocytes and/or neutrophils. Statistical analysis reveals that the prevalence of E. canis infection in dogs is not affected by breed, gender or age. The clinical symptoms of infected dogs are very complex, including fever, abortion, joint pain, breast tumours, short breathing, nasal haemorrhage, weakness, pale mucosa, skin inflammation, hair loss around the eyes, eye discharges, cloudy eyes, refuging to eat, diarrhoea, belly skin haemorrhage, anorexia, constipation, ascites, vomiting, depression, salivation, and metritis. About 37.9% of dogs are serologically infected with Ehrlichia canis with various symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".