Environmental risk factors of leptospirosis in urban settings: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Leptospirosis is the most common zoonotic disease that causes morbidity and mortality worldwide. The disease can cause sporadic epidemics and recent epidemics have become more apparent in urban localities. There is lack of documented evidence on the specific risk factors of leptospirosis infection among the urbanites, thereby impeding initiatives for prevention in urban settings. We aim to systematically search published articles and synthesise evidence on the risk factors associated with leptospirosis infection among the susceptible populations in urban localities, particularly to identify the risk factors of non-recreational leptospirosis infection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of observational studies that investigated environmental risk factors of leptospirosis in urban localities. The search will be performed for any eligible articles from selected electronic databases from 1970 until May 2018. The study will include any studies that investigated risk factors of confirmed leptospirosis cases who acquired the infection in urban locality, particularly exposures from the non-recreational and non-water-related activities. Study selection and reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline. All data will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form and quality of the studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale guideline. Descriptive and meta-analysis will be performed by calculating the standardised median ORs and risk ratios for types of the non-recreational risk factors stratified by social, living conditions and environmental exposures, types of reservoirs and transmissions and types of activities and employments associated with leptospirosis infection in urban locality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No primary data will be collected thus no formal ethical approval is required. The results will be disseminated though a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018090820.
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 | 0.053 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.008 |
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".