MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Emerging and reemerging intestinal protozoa

2001· article· en· W2091919339 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher D. Huston, William A. Petri

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Gastroenterology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmoebic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthBurroughs Wellcome FundHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsProtozoaCyclospora cayetanensisEntamoeba histolyticaCyclosporaProtozoan infectionAmoebiasisPopulationBiologyEntamoebaDiarrheaEnvironmental healthMedicineImmunologyCryptosporidiumMicrobiologyPathologyFeces

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intestinal protozoa have gained importance to physicians practicing medicine in the United States, Canada, and Europe during recent years as a result of increasing world travel, the globalization of the world's economy, and the growing number of chronically immunosuppressed people. During the spring of 1996, Cyclospora cayetanensis caused diarrhea in approximately 1500 people exposed to Guatemalan raspberries. This epidemic recurred in 1997, emphasizing the risks of the global economy and food supply on which we depend. In addition to importation of intestinal protozoa from the tropics, AIDS and the increasing use of organ transplants have created a new population of people at risk for chronic infection by ubiquitous protozoa previously not known to cause serious human disease. These infections include cryptosporidiosis, isosporiasis, and microsporidiosis. Finally, Entamoeba histolytica, the etiologic agent of invasive amebiasis, has only recently been recognized to be a distinct species from a nonpathogenic but indistinguishable (by light microscopy) intestinal commensal, Entamoeba dispar. The rapidly changing epidemiology of these intestinal protozoa, as well as new approaches to diagnosis and treatment of these protozoa, are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in GastroenterologySame topicAmoebic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207