Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Imported malaria is an increasing problem. The arrival of 224 African refugees presented the opportunity to investigate the diagnosis and management of imported malaria within the Quebec health care system. METHODS: The refugees were visited at home 3-4 months after arrival in Quebec. For 221, a questionnaire was completed and permission obtained for access to health records; a blood sample for malaria testing was obtained from 210. RESULTS: Most of the 221 refugees (161 [73%]) had had at least 1 episode of malaria while in the refugee camps. Since arrival in Canada, 87 (39%) had had symptoms compatible with malaria for which medical care was sought. Complete or partial records were obtained for 66 of these refugees and for 2 asymptomatic adults whose children were found to have malaria: malaria had been appropriately investigated in 55 (81%); no malaria smear was requested for the other 13. Smears were reported as positive for 20 but confirmed for only 15 of the 55; appropriate therapy was verified for 10 of the 15. Of the 5 patients with a false-positive diagnosis of malaria, at least 3 received unnecessary therapy. Polymerase chain reaction testing of the blood sample obtained at the home visit revealed malaria parasites in 48 of the 210 refugees (23%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 17%- 29%). The rate of parasite detection was more than twice as high among the 19 refugees whose smears were reported as negative but not sent for confirmation (47%; 95% CI 25%- 71%). INTERPRETATION: This study has demonstrated errors of both omission and commission in the response to refugees presenting with possible malaria. Smears were not consistently requested for patients whose presenting complaints were not "typical" of malaria, and a large proportion of smears read locally as "negative" were not sent for confirmation. Further effort is required to ensure optimal malaria diagnosis and care in such high-risk populations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".