Trypanosoma cruzi infection of squirrel monkeys: comparison of blood smear examination, commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and polymerase chain reaction analysis as screening tests for evaluation of monkey-related injuries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Wild-caught New World monkeys (NWM) from Central or South America are often infected with Trypanosoma species, including T. cruzi. In humans, T. cruzi causes Chagas' disease. Even in closed monkey colonies, T. cruzi can be propagated by blood-to-blood exposure, sexual activity, and transplacental transmission. Animal handlers and laboratory staff who deal with blood and tissues from infected NWM are at riskfor acquiring Chagas' disease via accidental exposure. METHODS: We screened 162 blood samples from wild-caught Saimiri sp. monkeys for Trypanosoma species infections by use of blood smear examination, ELISA, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Blood samples from 19 employees with recent history of monkey-associated injuries also were tested. RESULTS: Six percent (10/162) of the monkey samples were T. cruzi positive on the basis of blood smear examination results, 10.4% (17/162) were positive by ELISA results, and 26.5% (43/162) were positive by PCR results. Other organisms identified by PCR analysis included T. rangeli in two animals, Plasmodium spp. in two animals (P. malariae confirmed by PCR results) and microfilariae in one animal (morphologically, Mansonella perstans). Evidence of trypanosome infection was not found in the 19 employee samples on the basis of results of any of the three aforementioned tests. CONCLUSIONS: Close attention must be paid to worker safety where wild-caught NWM are used. The PCR analysis has a clear advantage over conventional techniques (ELISA, blood smear) for screening NWM for trypanosome infections during quarantine and after employee injury.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".