Surveillance of foodborne parasitic diseases in Europe in a One Health approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2012, WHO/FAO ranked 24 foodborne parasites (FBP) using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to provide risk assessors with a basis for prioritising control of highly ranked FBP on the global level. One conclusion was that ranking may differ substantially per region. In Europe, the same methodology was used to rank FBP of relevance for Europe. Of the 24 FBP, the top-five prioritised FBP were identified for Europe as Echinococcus multilocularis, Toxoplasma gondii, Trichinella spiralis, E. granulosus, and Cryptosporidium spp., all of which are zoonotic. The objective of the present study was to provide an overview of surveillance and reporting systems in Europe for these top five prioritised FBP in the human and animal populations, to identify gaps, and give recommendations for improvement. Information on the surveillance systems was collected from 35 European countries and analysed according to the five different regions. For most FBP, human surveillance is passive in most countries and regions in Europe and notification differs between countries and regions. Adequate surveillance programmes for these FBP are lacking, except for T. spiralis, which is notifiable in 34 countries with active surveillance in susceptible animals under EU directive. Although human and animal surveillance data are available for the five prioritised FBP, we identified a lack of consistency in surveillance and reporting requirements between national experts and European bodies. Recommendations for improved surveillance systems are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it