Leptospira Exposure and Waste Pickers: A Case-Control Seroprevalence Study in Durango, Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infection with Leptospira may occur by contact with Leptospira-infected animals. Waste pickers are in contact with rodents and dogs while picking in the garbage. Whether waste pickers are at risk for Leptospira infection is largely unknown. This study was aimed to determine the association of Leptospira IgG seroprevalence with the occupation of waste picking, and to determine the epidemiological characteristics of the waste pickers with Leptospira exposure. METHODS: Through a case-control study, we determined the seroprevalence of anti-Leptospira IgG antibodies in 90 waste pickers and 90 age- and gender-matched control subjects in Durango City, Mexico using an enzyme immunoassay. Data were analyzed by bivariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The prevalence of anti-Leptospira IgG antibodies was similar in waste pickers (4/90: 4.4%) to that in control subjects (5/90: 5.6%) (P = 1.00). Bivariate analysis showed that Leptospira exposure in waste pickers was associated with increasing age (P = 0.009), no education (P = 0.008), and consumption of rat meat (P = 0.04). However, these associations were no longer found by multivariate analysis. Leptospira exposure in waste pickers was not associated with health status, duration in the activity, wearing hand gloves and facemasks, history of injuries with sharp material of the garbage, or contact with animals or soil. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study about Leptospira exposure in waste pickers. Results suggest that waste pickers are not at increasing risk for Leptospira exposure in Durango City, Mexico. Further research with a larger sample size to elucidate the association of Leptospira exposure with waste picking activity is needed.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".