A systematic review of the diversity and virulence correlates of metastrongyle lungworms in marine mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Metastrongyle lungworms could be particularly detrimental for diving animals such as marine mammals; however, little is known of the drivers of pathogenic host–parasite relationships in this group. This systematic review analysed the diversity of metastrongyles in marine mammals and the host and parasite traits associated with virulence. There have been at least 40 species of metastrongyles described in 66 species of marine mammals. After penalization for study biases, Halocercus hyperoodoni , Otostrongylus circumlitus , Parafilaroides gymnurus , Halocercus brasiliensis and Stenurus minor were the metastrongyles with the widest host range. Most studies (80.12%, n = 133/166) reported that metastrongyles caused bronchopneumonia, while in the cardiovascular system metastrongyles caused vasculitis in nearly half of the studies (45.45%, n = 5/11) that assessed these tissues. Metastrongyles were associated with otitis in 23.08% ( n = 6/26) of the studies. Metastrongyle infection was considered a potential contributory to mortality in 44.78% ( n = 90/201) of the studies while 10.45% ( n = 21/201) of these studies considered metastrongyles the main cause of death. Metastrongyle species with a wider host range were more likely to induce pathogenic effects. Metastrongyles can cause significant tissue damage and mortality in marine mammals although virulent host–parasite relationships are dominated by a few metastrongyle species with wider host ranges.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".