MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7039079927

The lesions of toe tip necrosis in southern Alberta feedlot cattle provide insight into the pathogenesis of the disease

2015· article· en· W7039079927 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathogenesisFeedlotPhalanxNecrosisGross examinationHindlimbCattle Diseases
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gross and histologic postmortem studies were performed on the hind feet of feedlot cattle that had, or were free from, lesions of toe tip necrosis. The hind feet of feedlot cattle were collected by 3 veterinary feedlot practices in southern Alberta, Canada. Three studies of these feet were conducted: i) prediction of disease based on the presence or absence of apical white line separation, ii) gross assessment of the distribution and severity of lesions within affected claws, and iii) microscopic evaluation of the distal phalanx and surrounding soft tissues of affected claws. Prediction of toe tip necrosis based on the presence of apical white line separation was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). This, combined with a pattern of lesions indicative of an ascending infection of the distal phalanx and the absence of other lesions, suggests that the pathogenesis involves bacterial infection originating from the most distal aspect of the toe, at the apical white line.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207