Intestinal parasitic infection among household contacts of primary cases, a comparative cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Intestinal parasitic infection affects 3.5 billion people in the world and mostly affecting the low socio-economic groups. The objectives of this research were to estimate the prevalence and determinants of intestinal parasitic infection among family members of known intestinal parasite infected patients. Methods and materials A comparative cross-sectional study design was implemented in the urban and rural settings of mecha district. The data were collected from August 2017 to March 2019 from intestinal parasitic infected patient household members. Epi-info software was used to calculate the sample size, 4531 household members were estimated to be included. Data were collected using interview technique and colleting stool samples from each household contact of intestinal parasite patients. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the prevalence of intestinal parasites among known contacts of intestinal parasites patients/family members. Binary logistic regression was used to identify the determinant factors of intestinal parasitic infection among family members. Results The prevalence of intestinal parasite among household contacts of parasite-infected family members was 86.14 % [95% CI: 86.14 % - 87.15 %]. Hookworm parasitic infection was the predominant type of infection (18.8%). Intestinal parasitic infection was associated with sex, environmental sanitation, source of water, habit of playing with domestic animals, the presence of chicken in the house, the presence of household water filtering materials, overcrowding, personal hygiene, residence, and substandard house, role in the household, source of light for the house, floor materials, trimmed fingernails, family size, regular hand washing practice, barefoot. Conclusion The prevalence of intestinal parasites was high among household contacts of primary confirmed cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".