Case-Control Studies of Sporadic Enteric Infections: A Review and Discussion of Studies Conducted Internationally from 1990 to 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiologists have used case-control studies to investigate enteric disease outbreaks for many decades. Increasingly, case-control studies are also used to investigate risk factors for sporadic (not outbreak-associated) disease. While the same basic approach is used, there are important differences between outbreak and sporadic disease settings that need to be considered in the design and implementation of the case-control study for sporadic disease. Through the International Collaboration on Enteric Disease "Burden of Illness" Studies (the International Collaboration), we reviewed 79 case-control studies of sporadic enteric infections caused by nine pathogens that were conducted in 22 countries and published from 1990 through to 2009. We highlight important methodological and study design issues (including case definition, control selection, and exposure assessment) and discuss how approaches to the study of sporadic enteric disease have changed over the last 20 years (e.g., making use of more sensitive case definitions, databases of controls, and computer-assisted interviewing). As our understanding of sporadic enteric infections grows, methods and topics for case-control studies are expected to continue to evolve; for example, advances in understanding of the role of immunity can be used to improve control selection, the apparent protective effects of certain foods can be further explored, and case-control studies can be used to provide population-based measures of the burden of disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".