MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414047767 · doi:10.5539/jas.v17n10p17

A Demonstration of Leukergy—A Form of Leukocyte Aggregation—in Hen Blood Samples

2025· article· en· W4414047767 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul F. Cotter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityMichigan State University
KeywordsPlateletHomogeneousPlatelet aggregationBlood cellLeukocyte CountsBlood smear

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective: Leukocyte aggregation of blood is used to diagnose infectious and inflammatory disease in humans and mammals, but not yet in avians. This study describes aggregations of avian blood leukocytes demonstrating a behavior known as “leukergy.” It was detected in blood smears from a large study (N ~300) of commercial hens (LSL) housed in aviaries (AV) conventional cages (CC) and enriched cages (EN). Methodology: Three samples at 32 wk and 3 at 56 wk were selected to illustrate the leukergy phenomenon. Aggregates, defined as clusters containing a minimum of 3 contiguous cells, were found by light microscopy of Wright-Giemsa stained blood films. Results: The leukergy aggregates containing cells of the same series, called a homogeneous type, or a mixed series, called a heterogeneous type. The number of cells in an aggregate ranged from as few as 3 (minimum required) to hundreds. Most aggregates were large enough to be seen at 10× magnification. Cellular detail required either 40× or 100× (oil) magnification. Some aggregates contained only toxic heterophils; others contained only normal heterophils. Mixed aggregates containing normal lymphoid and monocytoid cells or reactive types were found in the clusters along with granulocytes. Reactive basophils were in some aggregates with granulocytes. Eosinophils were not found. Although also present along with leukergy, emboli composed of thrombocytes alone were not considered to represent the phenomenon. Heterophil/lymphocyte (H/L) ratios and total white blood (TWBCs) were computed by counting isolated cells and did not include cells of aggregates. Blood having high TWBC (> 100K) and low H/L (~0.1-0.6) ratios can contain aggregates. Leukergy could also be found in some blood samples with “normal” TWBC (~30K) levels. Bacteria were commonly observed in leukergy-positive blood samples and some contained bacteria attached to the leukocytes or to erythrocytes. Conclusions: leukocyte aggregates containing 3 to hundreds of cells (leukergy) were in blood of commercial hens. The aggregates contained normal heterophils, toxic heterophils, and other leukocytes. Bacteria were common in positive samples. Microbial toxins likely affected cell surfaces, resulting in aggregations. Detecting leukergy during a standard differential count (SDC) demonstrates a cellular stress behavior. Leukergy implies infection, regardless of H/L ratios or the TWBC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207