Epidemiology associated with the exposure to <i>Toxoplasma gondii</i> in Nunavik’s Inuit population using the 2017 <i>Qanuilirpitaa</i> cross‐sectional health survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Foci of high seroprevalence against Toxoplasma gondii are observed in Nunavik, the Inuit land of Northern Quebec (Canada). Considering the rare occurrence of felids in the region, exposure is suspected to be driven by water‐ and food‐borne transmission routes. Hypotheses were that drinking untreated water from natural sources and eating country food mostly raw increased the risk of exposure to the parasite. Data from 1,300 Inuit participants of the 2017 Nunavik Health Survey were included in three weighted robust Poisson regression models. The effect of three types of exposure variables: (1) water treatment (yes/no) and if country food was mostly eaten raw (yes/no); (2) main source of drinking water (bottled/municipal/natural) and frequency of country food consumption (continuous) and (3) drinking water risk (low/intermediate/high) and frequency of a raw country food consumption (continuous), on the presence of Toxoplasma antibodies were estimated. Models were adjusted for age, sex and ecological region, with multiple sensitivity analyses being performed. Toxoplasma gondii seroprevalences were consistently correlated with age quadratically, sex (prevalence ratio = PRwoman/man ranged from 1.18 to 1.22), ecological region (PRHudsonBay/HudsonStrait ranged from 2.18 to 2.41; PRHudsonBay/UngavaBay ranged from 1.52 to 1.59) and consuming bivalve mollusc/urchin (PR varied from 1.02 to 1.21) across all three models. Each increase of two consumptions per month of beluga (PR ranged from 1.01 to 1.03), seal liver (PR ranged from 1.01 to 1.02) and goose (PR ranged from 1.01 to 1.02) were also associated with seropositivity, albeit more clearly in models 2 and 3, while drinking water mainly from natural (PR of 1.47) or municipal (PR = 1.42) sources compared to bottled water, was correlated with seroprevalence, although results were compatible with the null. Our results suggest that both the oocyst‐ (mollusc/urchin, drinking water) and cyst‐borne (walrus, seal liver and goose) transmission pathways could be present in Nunavik.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".