Data of the results obtained in the study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Porcine Circovirus type 2 (PCV2) infections are distributed worldwide and cause Porcine Circovirus Associated Disease (PCVAD). To minimize the impact of PCV2 infection on swine health and production, different vaccination schemes have been used since 2006. However, the association between vaccination schemes, virus load and disease under field conditions are not completely understood. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the effect of two different PCV2 vaccination schemes on the humoral response and PCV2 load in pigs after weaning under field conditions. Methods: Two commercial pig farms (Farm A and B), endemically infected with PCV2, which were using two different PCV2 subunit vaccinations schemes for sow, gilts and piglets, were selected. We designed a longitudinal study and measured IgG levels by ELISA and virus load by quantitative PCR in pigs after weaning. Forty 3-week old piglets were randomly selected at weaning and followed for 20 weeks. IgG levels and virus loads were compared within and between farms and considered statistically different if the non-parametric Kruskal Wallis test p value was lower than 0.05. Results: We found that low virus loads were maintained in pigs from both farms regardless of the vaccination scheme used (p>0.05). However, there was significant difference in the mean IgG levels observed over time (p<0.05), suggesting that different humoral immune response are not necessarily associated with different virus loads observed over time. Conclusions: These results are important because they can help to prevent PCV2 infections using different vaccination schemes to minimize the effect of PCVAD on swine health and production.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.075 |
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".