Short Communications: Assessing morphological preservation of gastrointestinal helminths in ethanol versus formalin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The accurate identification of gastrointestinal parasites from animal feces is vital for understanding many aspects of host-parasite interactions. Copromicroscopic parasite identification is a longstanding, frequently used, and cost-effective method, but its efficacy depends on the storage medium of the samples. In this study we compare the preservation of parasite larvae and eggs in ethanol versus formalin-preserved fecal samples collected from a wild population of Costa Rican capuchin monkeys (Cebus imitator). Samples were collected, halved, and stored in either 10% formalin or 96% ethanol at ambient temperature, then screened for the presence of parasites using a modified Wisconsin sedimentation technique and microscopy. Parasites were morphologically identified and graded on their preservation using a rubric we developed. We identified more parasitic morphotypes in samples preserved in formalin but found no difference in counts of parasites per fecal gram between mediums. The two most prevalent genera of parasites, Filariopsis and Strongyloides, were found in similar numbers in the different mediums and while Filariopsis larvae were better preserved in formalin, strongyle eggs showed no difference in preservation between mediums. Parasites preserved in ethanol and formalin were morphologically identifiable in samples stored up to 2 years, highlighting the suitability of both mediums in morphological parasite identification. While formalin-preserved samples may not be suitable for subsequent genetic analyses, ethanol-preserved samples can be studied further using molecular methods. Future studies may build on our current understanding of parasite ecology by pairing morphological and molecular methods to explore taxonomic diversity and deepen our understanding of host-parasite relationships.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".