Community-based surveillance of zoonotic parasites in a ‘One Health’ world: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The One Health (OH) concept provides an integrated framework for observing and improving health issues involving human, animal, and environmental factors, and has been applied in particular to zoonotic disease problems. We conducted a systematic review of English and Chinese language peer-reviewed and grey literature databases to identify zoonotic endoparasite research utilizing an OH approach in community-based settings. Our review identified 32 articles where specimens collected simultaneously from all three OH domains (people, animals, and the environment) were assessed for endoparasite infection or exposure. Study sites spanned 23 countries, and research teams brought together an average of seven authors from two countries. Surveillance of blood-borne and gastrointestinal protozoa were most frequently reported (19 of 32; 59%), followed by trematodes, nematodes, and cestodes. Laboratory techniques varied greatly between studies, and only 16 identified parasites using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) in all three OH domains. Our review identified important gaps in parasitology research operating under an OH framework. We recommend that investigators working in the realm of zoonotic disease strive to evaluate all three OH domains by integrating modern molecular tools as well as techniques provided by economists and social scientists.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it