Serology and eosinophil count in the diagnosis and management of strongyloidiasis in a non-endemic area.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strongyloidiasis is a chronic infection that may result in significant morbidity; however, diagnosis and management remain problematic. The objective of this study was to 1) evaluate the demographic, clinical, and laboratory features of 76 consecutive individuals who had Strongyloides stercoralis larvae identified in their fecal specimens; 2) determine the sensitivity of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for detecting antibodies to Strongyloides in those with confirmed infection; and 3) assess the serologic responses and changes in eosinophil counts following treatment. Most (96%) cases occurred in immigrants, but some patients had immigrated as long as 40 years earlier. The CDC Strongyloides EIA had a sensitivity of 94.6% (95% confidence interval = 92.0-97.2%) in this patient population with proven infection. Serologic and eosinophil counts decreased after therapy, suggesting that they may be useful markers of treatment success.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".