Ivermectin treatment for Strongyloides infection in patients with COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, is not recommended for prophylaxis or treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Inappropriate use of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 may make it less available for patients with serious parasitic infections who could benefit from its use and worsen the current shortage of ivermectin in Canada. However, patients with COVID-19 who are candidates to receive immunomodulatory therapies (e.g. corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors) may be at risk of hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated disease from Strongyloides stercoralis. These complications can be severe and even fatal. It is important to recognize and screen patients who may be at risk of strongyloidiasis, as these patients may require treatment with ivermectin to avoid the potential for a hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated disease, which is frequently deadly. Clinicians should follow evidence-based recommendations to screen and treat for Strongyloides infection in patients with COVID-19 who are under consideration to receive specific COVID-19 therapies that alter immune response and may lead to hyperinfection syndrome or disseminated disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".