MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validation of the Effects of a SNP on SSC4 Associated with Viral Load and Weight Gain in Piglets Experimentally Infected with a 2006 PRRS Virus Isolate

2014· report· en· W72721133 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew S. Hess, Nicholas Boddicker, Bob Rowland, Joan K. Lunney, Graham Plastow, Jack C. M. Dekkers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAgricultural Research ServiceGenome CanadaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyPorcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virusSNPViremiaVirologyViral loadVirusCrossbreedPorcine circovirusSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneticsGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Host genetic differences in viral load (VL) and weight gain (WG) during challenge were assessed for five trials of ~200 commercial crossbred piglets each, all from different commercial suppliers. Piglets were experimentally infected with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) isolate KS-2006-72109 in order to validate the effects of a SNP previously identified on SSC4 (WUR10000125), whereby AB individuals had increased WG and reduced VL when experimentally infected with PRRSV isolate NVSL-97-7895. VL was defined as the area under the curve of logged viremia from 0-21 dpi. WG was defined as the weight gained from 0-42 dpi. The SNP effects on VL and WG were assessed. AB individuals had higher WG and lower VL than AA individuals, suggesting this marker may be useful for genetic selection of pigs for increased resistance or reduced susceptibility to PRRSV isolates that differ genetically and possibly pathogenically.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207