Clinical Features of Dog- and Bat-Acquired Rabies in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical differences in rabies due to canine and bat rabies virus variants have been noted, but no detailed studies have been reported to support these observations. METHODS: Using the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and PubMed, we identified 142 case reports of rabies from North America, South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. We systematically abstracted 126 selected data elements and compared clinical features and investigation results in dog- and bat-acquired cases of rabies. RESULTS: Survivors and cases acquired from aerosolized viral exposure or tissue/organ transplant were excluded (n = 20). Of 122 cases, 49 (40.2%) were dog-acquired and 54 (44.3%) were bat-acquired. Bat-acquired cases of rabies were more often misdiagnosed and lacked a bite history. Encephalopathy, hydrophobia, and aerophobia were more common in dog-acquired rabies. Abnormal cranial nerve, motor, and sensory examinations, tremor, myoclonus, local sensory symptoms, symptoms at the exposure site, and local symptoms in the absence of a bite or scratch were more common in patients with bat-acquired rabies, as was increased cerebrospinal fluid protein (P = .031). Patients with paralytic rabies had longer survival times than those with encephalitic rabies, and also had shorter incubation periods if they had received postexposure prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical differences in dog- and bat-acquired rabies may reflect differences in the route of viral spread of rabies virus variants in the nervous system, although certain variants could cause more severe dysfunction in neuronal subpopulations. Recognition that bat-acquired rabies may present with different clinical manifestations than dog-acquired rabies may help improve the early diagnosis of rabies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".