Assessing morphological preservation of gastrointestinal parasites from fecal samples of wild capuchin monkeys (Cebus imitator) stored in ethanol versus formalin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The copromicroscopic identification of gastrointestinal parasites is a common, cost-effective method vital to understanding host-parasite interactions. However, its efficacy depends on effective preservation of the samples. In this study, we compare the preservation of ethanol and formalin preserved gastrointestinal parasites collected from a wild population of Costa Rican capuchin monkeys (Cebus imitator). Fecal samples were collected, halved, and stored in either 10% formalin or 96% ethanol at ambient temperature, then microscopically screened for the presence of parasites. Parasites were morphologically identified and rated based on their preservation using a newly developed rubric. We identified more parasitic morphotypes in formalin-preserved samples but found no difference in the number of parasites per fecal gram (PFG) between mediums. There was no difference in the PFG of two most prevalent parasite morphotypes, Filariopsis barretoi larvae and Strongyle-type eggs, and while Filariopsis larvae were better preserved in formalin, strongyle eggs showed no preservation difference between mediums. Our results support the suitability of both ethanol and formalin for morphological parasite identification in samples stored over 1 year, describe the morphological changes and challenges associated with parasite degradation, and highlight the potential for future studies to use both morphological and molecular methods in non-invasively collected samples.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".