Concordance of <i>Toxoplasma gondii</i> Infection Markers Among Heterosexual Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Very little is known about concordance of Toxoplasma gondii ( T. gondii ) infection markers among couples. Through a cross-sectional study, we sought to determine the correlation of T. gondii infection in a sample of 119 heterosexual couples in Durango State, Mexico. Methods: Participants were examined for the presence of anti- T. gondii IgG and IgM antibodies using enzyme-linked immunoassays. IgG and IgM seropositive couples were further analyzed for the presence of T. gondii DNA by using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Results: Anti- T. gondii IgG antibodies were found in 71 (59.7%) men and in 63 (52.9%) women (odds ratio (OR) = 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78 - 2.19; P = 0.29). Of the 71 seropositive men, 40 (56.3%) had a seropositive couple; in contrast, of the 63 seropositive women, 40 (63.5%) had a seropositive couple (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.37 - 1.48; P = 0.39). In total, 65 (54.6%) couples had concordant results (both IgG positive or both IgG negative), and 54 (45.4%) had discordant results (a seropositive man with a seronegative woman, or a seropositive woman with a seronegative man) (kappa index = 0.08; 95% CI: -0.09 - 0.26). With respect to high (> 150 IU/mL) levels of anti- T. gondii IgG antibodies, 79 (66.4%) of the 119 couples had concordant results and 40 (33.6%) had discordant results (kappa index = -0.15; 95% CI: -0.03 - 0.33). Forty couples were positive for anti- T. gondii IgM antibodies. Of them, 21 (52.5%) had concordant results, and 19 (47.5%) had discordant results (kappa index = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.39 - 0.28). Concerning PCR, eight (50%) of 16 couples were positive for T. gondii DNA. Of them, 11 (68.8%) had concordant results, and five (31.2%) had discordant results (kappa index = 0.31; 95% CI: -0.17 - 0.79). Conclusions: Results suggest a poor concordance of serological and molecular markers of T. gondii infection among heterosexual couples. Further studies to confirm our results should be conducted. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(9):788-792 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3117w
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".