MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7098082045

1 Multilocus Sequence Typing Analysis of Clostridium perfringens 1 Isolates from Necrotic Enteritis Outbreaks in Broiler Chickens 2 Running Title: MLST Analysis of Clostridium perfringens from Chickens 3

2008· article· en· W7098082045 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultilocus sequence typingClostridium perfringensOutbreakTypingFlockBroilerPathogenEnteritis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2 ABSTRACT 18 Clostridium perfringens is an important pathogen of animals and humans, and is 19 the causative agent of necrotic enteritis (NE) in poultry. This study focuses on the typing 20 of intestinal C. perfringens isolates (n = 61) from outbreaks of NE collected from several 21 areas of Southern Ontario, using a recently developed multilocus sequence typing 22 (MLST) technique. As a comparison, C. perfringens isolates from healthy birds were 23 also obtained and typed. An additional locus, pfoS, was included in our analysis, in an 24 attempt to increase the discriminatory ability of the method previously published. Birds 25 were collected from two major poultry processors in Canada, and isolates from Processor 26 2 formed a distinct MLST cluster. Isolates from healthy birds also collected from the 27 outbreak flocks clustered together with the NE birds. Although isolates from eight 28 outbreaks clustered together, MLST types were also occasionally different between 29 outbreaks. Strong linkage disequilibrium was observed between loci, suggesting a clonal 30

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)0.001
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research→French-language works237,207→