Haematological correlates of blood parasitism in green frogs and mallards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ducks and frogs are commonly hosts to parasitic infections and may respond to these by mounting an immune response. I tested for correlations between intensity of blood parasite, including Hepatozoon Species in green frogs (Rana clamitans) and Leucocytozoon simondi in mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). In 2006, frogs were collected from seven different ponds around Kings County, kept for three consecutive days, and sampled twice (day 1 and 3) to make blood smears. Ducklings had acquired Leucocytozoon simondi from black fly (Simuliidae) vectors in Algonquin Park, Ontario in 1993. From 10 days post-exposure on, weekly blood smears were made for five weeks. Differential white blood cell counts were made on smears from both ducks and frogs. Average white blood cell percentages for frogs were 65.8 for lymphocytes, 15.5 for heterophils, 17.1 for eosinophils, 1.1 for monocytes, and 0.5 for basophils, whereas average white blood cell percentages for ducks were 69.5 for lymphocytes, 24.7 for heterophils, 5.0 for monocytes, 0.7 for eosinophils and 0.1 for basophils. Significant relationships between Hepatozoon spp. and the number of white blood cells were not found in frogs. Lack of significance could be due to factors other than Hepatozoon spp. affecting the immune response. In ducks, heterophil counts were positively correlated and lymphocyte counts were negatively correlated in week two with parasite counts from week three. Also, heterophil and lymphocyte counts from week three had significant correlations (positive and negative, respectively) with parasite counts from week two. These results suggested that lymphocytes may be associated with a decrease in parasitemia, and that parasitemia may be associated with a proliferation of heterophils.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".