Prevalence of<i>Toxoplasma gondii</i>and Other Gastrointestinal Parasites in Domestic Cats from Households in Thika Region, Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GIT) parasites of domestic cats (Felis catus) not only cause morbidity but are also potential zoonotic agents. The current study aimed at establishing the prevalence of GIT parasites in cats kept by households in Thika region, Kenya. Fecal samples were collected randomly from 103 cats and analyzed for presence of parasites using standard parasitological methods. In descending order, the prevalence of the detected protozoa parasites wasIsosporaspp. 43.7% (95% CI: 40.4–47%),Cryptosporidiumspp. 40.8% (95% CI: 37.5–44.1%),Toxoplasma gondii7.8% (95% CI: 4.5–11.1%), andEntamoebaspp. 2.9% (95% CI: 1.6–6.2%). The prevalence of the observed helminths wasStrongyloides stercoralis43.7% (95% CI: 40.4–47%),Toxocara cati23.3% (95% CI: 20–26.6%),Ancylostomaspp. 9.7% (95% CI: 6.4–13%),Dipylidium caninum8.7% (95% CI: 5.4–12.0%), andAcanthocephalaspp. 1.9% (95% CI: 1–4.2%). The percentage of cats excreting at least one species of parasite was 73.2% (95% CI = 69.9–76.5%). The study shows that the cats have high spectrum (9) of parasites which are known to affect the cat’s health and some are of zoonotic significance.
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 | 0.000 | 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".