Prevalence, spatial distribution and risk mapping of Dirofilaria immitis in wild canids in southern Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domestic dogs ( Canis familiaris ) and wild canids , including coyotes ( Canis latrans ) and red foxes ( Vulpes vulpes ), serve as definitive hosts for Dirofilaria immitis , a parasitic nematode causing the heartworm disease. Understanding infection risks in wildlife reservoirs in relation to environmental factors is crucial for assessing exposure risk in domestic dogs. The regional prevalence of D. immitis infection was estimated in trapped wild coyotes and red foxes across Québec, Canada. Spatial clusters of infection were detected using Kulldorff's spatial scan statistics. A series of logistic regression models predicting the D . immitis status in coyotes were built from heartworm development unit (HDU) estimates and cumulative precipitation variables over various time periods. Between October 2020 and March 2021, 421 coyotes and 284 red foxes were examined for the presence of D. immitis . The parasite was found in 43 coyotes and 1 red fox. A high-risk infection cluster was detected in coyotes in southwestern Québec. The best model included as sole predictor the average cumulative HDU contributing to risk of D. immitis in the three years preceding coyote capture. This model significantly predicted infection status with an area under the curve of 76.1%. The cumulative precipitation had no notable effect in any model. This study highlights a high prevalence of D. immitis in coyotes in Québec with regional differences correlated to temperature-derived predictors. The spatial risk of infection in this population likely represents the environmental risk of exposure to the parasite given that coyotes do not receive preventive treatment compared to domestic dogs. Our findings are important for veterinarians in the application of prevention strategies for heartworm disease in domestic dogs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".