The zoonotic potential of<i>Mycobacterium avium</i>ssp.<i>paratuberculosis</i>: a systematic review and meta-analyses of the evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review-meta-analysis appraises and summarizes all the available research (128 papers) on the zoonotic potential of Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis. The latter has been debated for a century due to pathogenic and clinical similarities between Johne's disease in ruminants and Crohn's disease (108 studies) in humans and recently for involvement in other human diseases; human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (2), sarcoidosis (3), diabetes mellitus type 1 (T1DM) (7) and type 2 (3), multiple sclerosis (5) and Hashimoto's thyroiditis (2). Meta-analytical results indicated a significant positive association, consistently across different laboratory methods for Crohn's disease [odds ratio (OR) range 4·26-8·44], T1DM (OR range 2·91-9·95) and multiple sclerosis (OR range 6·5-7·99). The latter two and the thyroiditis hypothesis require further investigation to confirm the association. Meta-regression of Crohn's disease studies using DNA detection methods indicated that choice of primers and sampling frame (e.g. general population vs. hospital-based sample) explained a significant proportion of heterogeneity. Other epidemiological studies demonstrated a lack of association between high-risk occupations and development of Crohn's disease. Due to knowledge gaps in understanding the role of M. paratuberculosis in the development or progression of human disease, the evidence at present is not strong enough to inform the potential public health impact of M. paratuberculosis exposure.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".