MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151998923 · doi:10.3390/pathogens10040399

Shared Odds of Borrelia and Rabies Virus Exposure in Serbia

2021· article· en· W3151998923 on OpenAlexaff
Pavle Banović, Adrian Alberto Díaz-Sánchez, Dragana Mijatović, Dragana Vujin, Zsolt Horváth, Nenad Vranješ, Zorana Budakov-Obradović, Nevenka Bujandrić, Jasmina Grujić, Abdul Ghafar, Abdul Jabbar, Verica Simin, Dasiel Obregón, Alejandro Cabezas‐Cruz

Bibliographic record

VenuePathogens · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsSeroprevalenceRabiesRabies virusBorrelia burgdorferiLyme diseaseBorreliaVirologyZoonosisMedicineOdds ratioBiologyVeterinary medicineImmunologySerologyAntibodyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lyme borreliosis (LB) is the most common tick-borne disease in Serbia and other European countries. Rabies is a fatal zoonosis distributed worldwide and is caused by the rabies virus. Professionals at risk of rabies—including veterinarians, hunters, communal service workers, and forestry workers—overlap with some professions at a higher risk of exposure to tick bites and tick-borne pathogen infections. We hypothesized that individuals identified by the public health system as at risk of rabies virus infection, and consequently vaccinated against rabies virus, also share a higher likelihood of Borrelia exposure. To test our hypothesis, a case-control study was carried out during 2019 in Serbia to determine the seroprevalence of anti-Borrelia antibodies in two case groups (individuals at risk and vaccinated against rabies virus) and a control group (individuals without risk of rabies). Individuals vaccinated against rabies following either “pre-exposure protocol” (PrEP, n = 58) or “post-exposure protocol” (PEP, n = 42) were considered as rabies risk groups and healthy blood donors (n = 30) as the control group. The results showed higher Borrelia seroprevalence in PrEP (17.2%; 10/58) and PEP (19.0%; 8/42) groups compared with the control group (6.67%; 2/30). Furthermore, odds ratio (OR) analysis showed that risk of rabies (in either the PrEP (OR = 2.91) or PEP (OR = 3.29) groups) is associated with increased odds of being seropositive to Borrelia. However, the difference in Borrelia seroprevalence between groups was not statistically significant (Chi-square (χ²) test p > 0.05). The shared odds of LB and rabies exposure found in this study suggest that, in countries where both diseases occur, the common citizen can be at risk of both diseases when in a risky habitat. These findings are important to guide physicians in targeting high-risk groups, and diagnose LB, and to guide decision-makers in targeting control and prevention measures for both infections in risk areas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathogensSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207