Molecular Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, Borrelia miyamotoi, Babesia odocoilei, Babesia microti and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Ixodes Ticks Collected across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tick-borne zoonotic diseases are a profound challenge to healthcare practitioners, and an overwhelming scourge to patients worldwide. On the whole, patients have great difficulty getting diagnosed and treated, and often become chronically ill. In this study, we tested 224 ticks consisting of Ixodes angustus, Ixodes pacificus, and Ixodes scapularis. Using real-time PCR and nested PCR, we obtained the following positives: Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (n = 74), Borrelia miyamotoi (n = 4), Babesia odocoilei (n = 82), Babesia microti (n = 1), and Anaplasma phagocytophilum (n = 8). Markedly, B. odocoilei and B. burgdorferi were detected in I. scapularis ticks nationwide. As well, the Canada-wide prevalence of B. burgdorferi s.l. and B. odocoilei in I. scapularis adults was 40% and 36%, respectively. The statistical ratio of B. odocoilei to B. microti in I. scapularis adults was 60 to 1. Babesia odocoilei is, unquestionably, the predominant Babesia sp. across Canada. We provide the first report of B. odocoilei in an I. angustus tick. In addition, we unfurl the first report of B. odocoilei in I. scapularis in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. From a professional healthcare standpoint, I. scapularis ticks are just as likely to be infected with Babesia odocoilei as Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. Since people spend considerable time in outdoor areas, clinicians must be familiar with current acumen in tick-borne zoonotic diseases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".