MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810039474 · doi:10.1089/vbz.2018.2280

Congenital Brucellosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2018· review· en· W2810039474 on OpenAlexaff
Manal Alsaif, Kamal Dabelah, Hesham Al Girim, Robin Featherstone, Joan Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueVector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrucellosisMedicineBrucella melitensisAsymptomaticPediatricsBrucellaPregnancyGestational ageObstetricsSurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the spectrum of presentations and the outcome of congenital brucellosis should expedite diagnosis and improve prognostication. METHODS: A systematic review of literature of cases of congenital brucellosis was performed on October 10, 2017 (registered as PROSPERO CRD42017072061). RESULTS: A case seen by the authors was added to the review, yielding 44 reported cases of which 22 (50%) were from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait. For cases with the gestational age reported, 23 of 37 (62%) were preterm. The species was Brucella melitensis in 35 cases, Brucella abortus in 3 cases and not documented in 6 cases. The diagnosis was based on a positive blood culture from the first day of life in 20 cases (45%). Presentation was usually typical for a bacteremic infant of that GA, but two infants were asymptomatic at diagnosis. There were two recurrences and seven deaths (six in preterm infants), but the role of Brucella infection in the deaths was not clear. CONCLUSION: Brucellosis remains a concern in endemic countries, adversely affecting pregnancy and very rarely causing neonatal infection. Prematurity appeared to be the prime cause of death in neonates with congenital brucellosis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVector-Borne and Zoonotic DiseasesSame topicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatmentFrench-language works237,207