Parasitic Disease Screening among HIV Patients from Endemic Countries in a Toronto Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many North American-based HIV patients originate from parasitic disease-endemic regions. Strongyloidiasis, schistosomiasis and filariasis are important due to their wide distribution and potential for severe morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, as determined by serological screening, of strongyloidiasis, schistosomiasis and filariasis among patients in an HIV-focused, primary care practice in Toronto, Ontario. A secondary objective was to determine factors associated with positive serological screens. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic patient records was conducted. Results of serological screens for parasites and relevant laboratory data were collected. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were identified. The patients' mean CD4(+) count was 0.45×10(9)/L, median viral load was undetectable and 68% were on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Most originated from Africa (37%) and South America (35%). Of the 97 patients, 10.4% and 8.3% had positive or equivocal screening results for strongyloidiasis, respectively, 7.4% and 4.2% had positive or equivocal screening results for schistosomiasis and 5.5% and 6.8% had positive or equivocal screens for filariasis. Persons with positive parasitic serologies were more often female (28% versus 9%, P=0.03), younger in age (36 versus 43 years of age, P<0.01), had been in Canada for a shorter duration (5 versus 12 years, P<0.0001) and had a higher viral load (10,990 copies/mL versus <50 copies/mL, P <0.001). All patients were asymptomatic. Eosinophilia was not associated with positive screening results. CONCLUSIONS: Using symptoms and eosinophilia to identify parasitic infection was not reliable. Screening for strongyloidiasis and schistosomiasis among patients with HIV from parasite-endemic countries is simple and benign, and may prevent future complications. The clinical benefits of screening for filariasis require further elucidation, but this practice appears to be the least warranted. BACKGROUND: Many North American-based HIV patients originate from parasitic disease-endemic regions. Strongyloidiasis, schistosomiasis and filariasis are important due to their wide distribution and potential for severe morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, as determined by serological screening, of strongyloidiasis, schistosomiasis and filariasis among patients in an HIV-focused, primary care practice in Toronto, Ontario. A secondary objective was to determine factors associated with positive serological screens. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic patient records was conducted. Results of serological screens for parasites and relevant laboratory data were collected. RESULTS: /L, median viral load was undetectable and 68% were on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Most originated from Africa (37%) and South America (35%). Of the 97 patients, 10.4% and 8.3% had positive or equivocal screening results for strongyloidiasis, respectively, 7.4% and 4.2% had positive or equivocal screening results for schistosomiasis and 5.5% and 6.8% had positive or equivocal screens for filariasis. Persons with positive parasitic serologies were more often female (28% versus 9%, P=0.03), younger in age (36 versus 43 years of age, P<0.01), had been in Canada for a shorter duration (5 versus 12 years, P<0.0001) and had a higher viral load (10,990 copies/mL versus <50 copies/mL, P <0.001). All patients were asymptomatic. Eosinophilia was not associated with positive screening results. CONCLUSIONS: Using symptoms and eosinophilia to identify parasitic infection was not reliable. Screening for strongyloidiasis and schistosomiasis among patients with HIV from parasite-endemic countries is simple and benign, and may prevent future complications. The clinical benefits of screening for filariasis require further elucidation, but this practice appears to be the least warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".