MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2390406394

OBSERVATION ON THE CURATIVE EFFECTS OF IVERMECTIN COMBINED WITH ALBENDAZOLE AGAINST HOOKWORM AND WHIPWORM

2004· article· en· W2390406394 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaolan Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicHelminth infection and control
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlbendazoleIvermectinAnthelminticHookworm infectionHookworm InfectionsFecesGastroenterologyMedicineBiologyVeterinary medicineHelminthiasisImmunologyHelminthsSurgeryMicrobiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To observe the curative effects of ivermectin combined with albendazole against hookworm and whipworm. Methods The villagers whose stool examination for hookworm eggs was positive were treated with a single oral dose of 6 mg or 12 mg ivermectin combined with 200 mg albendazole. The villagers whose stool examination for whipworm eggs was positive were treated with a single oral dose of 12 mg ivermectin combined with 200 mg albendazole;and the villagers whose stool examination for hookworm or whipworm eggs was positive were treated with a single oral dose of 400 mg albendazole. The egg reversions were evaluated. Results 6 mg or 12 mg ivermectin combined with 200 mg albendazole was used to treat the villagers infected with hookworm,the egg reversion rate was 93.3% and 95.5% respectively. 12 mg ivermectin combined with 200 mg albendazole was used to treat the villagers infected with whipworm,the egg reversion rare was 94.3%. While a single dose of 400 mg albendazole was used to treat the villagers infected with hookworm or whipworm,the egg reversion rate was 66.7% and 47.1% respectively. Conclusion Ivermectin combined with albendazole has high curative effects against hookworm and whipworm with mild and transient side effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHelminth infection and controlFrench-language works237,207