Burden of gluteal fibrosis and post-injection paralysis in the children of Kumi District in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of postinjection paralysis (PIP) and gluteal fibrosis (GF) among children treated in a rural Ugandan Hospital. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study by reviewing the musculoskeletal clinic and community outreach logs for children (age < 18 yrs) diagnosed with either PIP or GF from Kumi Hospital in Kumi, Uganda between 2013 and 2015. We estimated the prevalence as a ratio of the number of children seen with each disorder over the total population of children seen for any musculoskeletal complaint in musculoskeletal clinic and total population of children seen for any medical complaint in the outreach clinic. RESULTS: Of 1513 children seen in the musculoskeletal clinic, 331 (21.9% (95% CI 19.8-24.1%)) had PIP and another 258 (17.1% (95% CI 15.2-19.0%)) had GF as their diagnosis. Of 3339 children seen during outreach for any medical complaint, 283 (8.5% (95% CI 7.6-9.5%)) had PIP and another 1114 (33.4% (95% CI 31.8-35.0%)) had GF. Of patients with GF, 53.9% were male with a median age of 10 years (50% between 7 and 12 years old). Of patients with PIP, 56.7% were male with a median age of 5 years (50% between 2 and 8 years old). CONCLUSION: PIP and GF comprise over 30% of clinical visits for musculoskeletal conditions and 40% of outreach visits for any medical complaint in this area of Uganda. The high estimated prevalence in these populations suggest a critical need for research, treatment, and prevention.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".