Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the London Declaration on neglected tropical disease (NTD), we are entering a new era of combating NTDs. However, the worldwide prospects of increased mass drug administration (MDA) treatments warrant caution on the development of anthelmintic resistance. In this review, we discuss the practical implications of MDA programs on the development of anthelmintic resistance in human soil-transmitted helminths (STH). RECENT FINDINGS: There is poor evidence of anthelmintic resistance in human STH. Moreover, there is presumptive evidence that the refugia in MDA programs to control human STH is currently large, suggesting that the development of anthelmintic resistance in STH will be slow or may not occur. It remains unclear whether the current MDA strategy to control STH will sufficiently delay or prevent the development of anthelmintic resistance. First, differences in efficacy across and within STH species, and seasonal transmission of STH have not yet been considered. Second, any surveillance system to monitor drug efficacy is lacking. Finally, there is still no agreed strategy on how to deal with anthelmintic resistance once it emerges. SUMMARY: Although anthelmintic resistance in human STH is currently of limited concern, various actions should be put in place for its delay and monitoring, and strategies should be developed in case anthelmintic resistance occurs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".