<i>Entamoeba histolytica</i> Infection in Female Sex Workers: A Matched Case-Control Study in Durango, Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Infection with Entamoeba histolytica ( E. histolytica ) can be potentially transmitted by sexual contact. The seroepidemiology of E. histolytica in female sex workers has not been studied. The aim of the study was to determine whether E. histolytica is associated with the occupation of female sex work. In addition, the correlates of E. histolytica seroprevalence in female sex workers were also investigated. Methods: We performed an age- and gender-matched case-control study of 187 female sex workers and 374 women without sex work. Cases and controls were tested for the presence of E. histolytica IgG antibodies using a commercially available enzyme-linked immunoassay. Seroprevalence association with the characteristics of female sex workers was determined by bivariate analysis. Results: Anti- E. histolytica IgG antibodies were found in five (2.7%) of 187 female sex workers and in 16 (4.3%) of 374 controls (odds ratios (OR) = 0.61; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.22 - 1.70; P = 0.34). Mean optical density of the immunoassay in seropositive cases and controls was 1.35 ± 0.93 and 0.73 ± 0.45, respectively (P = 0.05). Seroprevalence of E. histolytica infection did not vary significantly with age, education, socioeconomic level, or health status of sex workers. Seropositivity to E. histolytica did not correlate with work characteristics such as duration in the occupation, condom use, type of sex, or a history of sexually transmitted diseases, or with behavioral variables such as washing hands before eating, or consumption of untreated water. Conclusions: Results indicate that female sex workers do not have an increased risk for E. histolytica infection in Durango City, Mexico. Further studies to determine the risk of infection with E. histolytica by sexual contact should be conducted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".