MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005255441

Precision evaluation of different flotation solutions in the results of four coprological techniques in ungulates : impact on detecting anthelmintic resistance

2020· dissertation· en· W7005255441 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Lisbon Repository (University of Lisbon) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsAnthelminticResistance (ecology)FecesAcquired resistance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anthelmintic resistance (AHR) in gastrointestinal parasites of ruminants and horses has been continuously described all over the world in the last two decades. In order to delay, or even prevent, the further development of resistance to anthelmintics, a new deworming approach must be taken, considering the diagnostic tools available nowadays. This study aims to evidence the differential performances of four commonly employed coprological methods, using different flotation solutions, and make some practical recommendations on which technique seems better-suited to face this emerging problem in horse management. This thesis contains two parts. In the first one, three wild ungulate species were analyzed at ARTIS Amsterdam Royal Zoo to determine the repeatability of four common coprological methods – simple flotation (SF), centrifugal flotation (CF), McMaster (McM - sensitivity of 50 eggs per gram EPG) and Mini-FLOTAC (MF – sensitivity of 5 EPG) – in association with three flotation solutions with different specific gravities: salt (SG=1.20), magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) (SG=1.24) and sugar solution (SG=1.28); where each sample was analyzed 10 times. In the second part 17 fecal samples of Sorraia horses were collected in April 2019 (12 females on the pasture and five stabled males) and analyzed with the same methods but only with the salt and sugar solutions; each sample was analyzed in triplicates for SF and CF and in duplicates for McM and MF. As a semi-quantitative parameter, the number of eggs were counted in 10 fields of each slide and the mean was obtained for each replicate. In the first part of the study, CF was able to evidence a higher amount of total egg counts, especially with the denser solutions, with lower coefficients of variation (CV). MF performed with very good precision across the species, with different solutions apparently better for each one of them. In the second part of the study, SFsalt obtained the best results for detecting Triodontophorus spp. eggs, although not significantly (p>0.05). Yet, it showed lower CV than CF techniques, which makes it a more precise and reliable technique. High parasitic burdens (mean of 1825 EPG for all techniques) were registered and MFsugar performed more consistently as seen by its low variability. Through coprocultures, the prevalence of Cyathostomum s.l. type D (100%) and S. vulgaris (5.9%) were also detected. The results obtained here support the use of CF and MF methods in zoos as valid diagnostic tools. In general, MF was shown to be more precise and reliable across the study, urging the need to review current guidelines for the diagnosis of AHR, namely in horses. Unexpectedly, a clear association was evidenced, as salt solutions seem to be better suited for qualitative methods, whereas the sugar solutions better suited for quantitative ones instead.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Lisbon Repository (University of Lisbon)Same topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207