Reproductive Status of Onchocerca volvulus after Ivermectin Treatment in an Ivermectin-Naïve and a Frequently Treated Population from Cameroon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For two decades, onchocerciasis control has been based on mass treatment with ivermectin (IVM), repeated annually or six-monthly. This drug kills Onchocerca volvulus microfilariae (mf) present in the skin and the eyes (microfilaricidal effect) and prevents for 3-4 months the release of new mf by adult female worms (embryostatic effect). In some Ghanaian communities, the long-term use of IVM was associated with a more rapid than expected skin repopulation by mf after treatment. Here, we assessed whether the embryostatic effect of IVM on O. volvulus has been altered following frequent treatment in Cameroonian patients. METHODOLOGY: Onchocercal nodules were surgically removed just before (D0) and 80 days (D80) after a standard dose of IVM in two cohorts with different treatment histories: a group who had received repeated doses of IVM over 13 years, and a control group with no history of large-scale treatments. Excised nodules were digested with collagenase to isolate adult worms. Embryograms were prepared with females for the evaluation of their reproductive capacities. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Oocyte production was not affected by IVM. The mean number of intermediate embryos (morulae and coiled mf) decreased similarly in the two groups between D0 and D80. In contrast, an accumulation of stretched mf, either viable or degenerating, was observed at D80. However, it was observed that the increase in number of degenerating mf between D0 and D80 was much lower in the frequently treated group than in the control one (Incidence Rate Ratio: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.10-0.63; p = 0.003), which may indicate a reduced sequestration of mf in the worms from the frequently treated group. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: IVM still had an embryostatic effect on O. volvulus, but the effect was reduced in the frequently treated cohort compared with the control population.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".