Association between exposure to toxoplasmosis and major psychiatric disorders: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between exposure to toxoplasmosis and major psychiatric disorders through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: The literature review was performed in the MEDLINE, SciELO, and PsycINFO databases. To evaluate the quality of the studies included in the review, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included, and the majority found an association between exposure to toxoplasmosis and schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (58.3 and 54.5% of the included papers, respectively), but not major depressive disorder. We found no significant difference in mean quality scores between studies that corroborated and contradicted the association hypothesis for either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. All included papers were considered at least satisfactory according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (total scores ≥ 6 out of 9). CONCLUSION: Although there was no association between exposure to toxoplasmosis and major depressive disorder, the results indicate an association with both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, despite their heterogeneity. Further studies should be performed with more specific variables so that the nature of these relationships can be elucidated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".