ESTUDO COMPARATIVO ENTRE PUAS TÉCNICAS DE XENODIAGNÓSTICO ARTIFICIAL APLICADO EM PACIENTES CHAGÁSICOS CRÓNICOS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foram realizados 33 xenodiagnósticos artificiais em pacientes sabidamente chagásicos crónicos, em um estudo comparativo com duas técnicas diferentes; uma técnica proposta por Lima & Rey (1991) e outra por Silva (1991). Nesse estudo utilizaram-se ninfas de terceiro estádio de Pamlrongyltts megistus, Rhodnius negleclux e Tnatoma infestans. Dos 33 xenodiagnósticos realizados, seis foram positivos, sendo dois (6,1%) pela primeira e quatro(12,1%) pela segunda. A faixa etária acima de 55 anos foi a que apresentou maior número de casos positivos. Ao comparar o volume de sangue ingerido, observou-se que os triatomíneos sugaram maior quantidade quando foi utilizada a técnica de Silva (1991) com (p<0,0001), sendo que a espécie que ingeriu maior volume foi o P- megistus.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".