Expert consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of cystic and alveolar echinococcosis in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The earlier recommendations of the WHO-Informal Working Group on Echinococcosis (WHO-IWGE) for the treatment of human echinococcosis have had considerable impact in different settings worldwide, but the last major revision was published more than 10 years ago. Advances in classification and treatment of echinococcosis prompted experts from different continents to review the current literature, discuss recent achievements and provide a consensus on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Among the recognized species, two are of medical importance -Echinococcus granulosus and Echinococcus multilocularis - causing cystic echinococcosis (CE) and alveolar echinococcosis (AE), respectively. For CE, consensus has been obtained on an image-based, stage-specific approach, which is helpful for choosing one of the following options: (1) percutaneous treatment, (2) surgery, (3) anti-infective drug treatment or (4) watch and wait. Clinical decision-making depends also on setting-specific aspects. The usage of an imaging-based classification system is highly recommended. For AE, early diagnosis and radical (tumour-like) surgery followed by anti-infective prophylaxis with albendazole remains one of the key elements. However, most patients with AE are diagnosed at a later stage, when radical surgery (distance of larval to liver tissue of >2cm) cannot be achieved. The backbone of AE treatment remains the continuous medical treatment with albendazole, and if necessary, individualized interventional measures. With this approach, the prognosis can be improved for the majority of patients with AE. The consensus of experts under the aegis of the WHO-IWGE will help promote studies that provide missing evidence to be included in the next update.
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 | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
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".