Prevalence of tuberculosis, brucellosis and trypanosomiasis in cattle in Tanzania: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A meta-analysis was performed to derive prevalence estimates for Brucella spp., Mycobacterium spp. and Trypanosoma spp. in cattle in Tanzania using data derived from a systematic review of zoonotic hazards in cattle production systems. Articles published before 2012 reporting prevalence and considered at least moderate in quality were included in the analysis. Results showed high heterogeneity between studies, with wide ranges in the reported prevalence: Brucella (0.3-60.8%), Mycobacterium (0.1-13.2%) and Trypanosoma (0.82-33.3%). Overall meta-analytic mean prevalence estimates were 8.2% (95% CI 6.5-10.2), 1.28% (95% CI 0.35-4.58) and 10.3% (95% CI 6.20-16.70) respectively, for Brucella spp., Mycobacterium spp. and Trypanosoma spp. Time and region were predictors of variability of Brucella spp. prevalence, while diagnostic test was a strong predictor of Mycobacterium spp. prevalence, with higher prevalence estimates given by skin tests compared with post-mortem inspection. None of the studied factors were associated with prevalence of Trypanosoma spp. The small sample sizes, range of study locations, study designs and diagnostics used, contributed to high variability among prevalence estimates. Larger and more robust prevalence studies are needed to adequately support risk assessment and management of animal and public health threats.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".