Lack of Association Between <i>Toxoplasma gondii</i> Infection and Diabetes Mellitus: A Matched Case-Control Study in a Mexican Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Very little is known about the association between infection with Toxoplasma gondii ( T. gondii ) and diabetes mellitus. We perform an age- and gender-matched case-control study to determine the association of T. gondii infection and diabetes mellitus. Methods: Cases included 156 patients with diabetes mellitus and 156 controls without diabetes mellitus who attended in two public clinics in Durango City, Mexico. Sera of cases and controls were tested for the presence of anti- Toxoplasma IgG and IgM antibodies using commercially available enzyme-linked fluorescence assays (ELFA). Results: Anti- T. gondii IgG antibodies were found in 10 (6.4%) of the 156 cases and in five (3.2%) of the 156 controls (odds ratio (OR): 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69 - 6.19; P = 0.18). The frequency of high (> 150 IU/mL) anti- T. gondii IgG levels in seropositive cases (1/10: 10.0%) was comparable to the one (1/5: 20%) in seropositive controls (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.02 - 9.03; P = 1.00). None of the 10 cases and five controls with seropositivity to anti- T. gondii IgG antibodies were positive for anti- T. gondii IgM antibodies. Stratification by gender showed similar frequencies of T. gondii infection in female cases (7/107: 6.5%) and female controls (4/107: 3.7%) (OR: 1.80; 95% CI: 0.51 - 6.34; P = 0.53), and in male cases (3/49: 6.1%) and male controls (1/49: 2.0%) (OR: 3.13; 95% CI: 0.31 - 31.19; P = 0.61). Conclusions: We conclude that there is not serological evidence of an association between T. gondii infection and diabetes mellitus in the studied subjects in Durango City, Mexico. Further studies to elucidate the role of T. gondii in diabetes should be conducted. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(6):508-511 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3029w
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".