Risk factors associated with <i>Chlamydia psittaci</i> infections in psittacine birds and bird handlers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and potential risk factors associated with Chlamydia psittaci infections in psittacine birds and bird handlers in Egypt. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 190 swabs were collected from psittacine birds (n = 120) and bird handlers (n = 70) and were tested by polymerase chain reaction to detect the C. psittaci ompA gene. Chlamydia psittaci DNA was detected in 63 (52·5%) of 120 samples collected from psittacine birds. The occurrence of C. psittaci infections was high in Cockatiel birds (60%), followed by Fischer's lovebird (51%) and Rosy-faced lovebird (47·5%). Bird age, location (pet markets and households), housing (caged and aviary), and sampling season were considered significant risk factors for C. psittaci infections in psittacine birds. Of the 70 sputum swabs collected from bird handlers, only 4 (6%) were positive for C. psittaci. Positive cases were closely associated with older persons (≥30 years) who had respiratory signs and handled birds in pet markets. Further, wearing protective gloves and washing hands when handling psittacine birds decreased the frequency of C. psittaci infections in bird handlers. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of C. psittaci infections in psittacine birds in Egypt is high, which has a potential threat to human health in this area. Thus, dissemination of effective prevention and control measures is essential to prevent the spread of C. psittaci among psittacine birds, as well as among humans in contact with birds. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Results from this study highlighted the risk factors associated with C. psittaci infections in psittacine birds and bird handlers in Egypt and will aid in developing prevention and control measures to reduce the risk of C. psittaci infection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".