MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220815872 · doi:10.1101/2022.03.08.22272080

Exposures associated with sporadic <i>Cryptosporidium</i> infection in industrialised countries: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4220815872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caoimhe McKerr, Wendi Shepherd, Rachel M. Chalmers, Roberto Vivancos, S. O’Brien, Alison Waldram, Kevin Pollock, Robert Christley

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of LiverpoolPublic Health EnglandUniversity of East AngliaNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research UnitNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of OxfordPublic Health Wales
KeywordsGrey literatureCryptosporidiumScopusPsychological interventionSystematic reviewEnvironmental healthMedicineOutbreakGeographyMEDLINEFamily medicinePathologyBiologyEcologyFecesPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Transmission of Cryptosporidium can occur via contaminated food or water, contact with animals or other people. Exposures are often identified from outbreak investigations, but sources for sporadic disease and pathways to infection are still unclear. The aim of this review is to consolidate the literature to describe exposures associated with human cryptosporidiosis in industrialised countries. Methods followed the recommendations made in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Three steps were used to identify the literature including electronic database searching using PubMed, Scopus and Web Of Science; reference list trawling; and an exploration of the grey literature. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Screening of results was undertaken by two reviewers and data extracted using a standardised form. A narrative summary presented. Papers were included if they reported on sporadic cases and were published between 2008 and 2018. Exposures were grouped into pathways. After full-text screening, eight articles (comprising 11 studies) were included, and seven (comprising 10 studies) were suitable for further synthesis. None of the identified grey literature was included. Four studies described case-control methods, two were case-case studies and one cross-sectional. Study year ranged from 1999 to 2017 and the studies were conducted in five, large countries in three continents: Europe (UK and the Netherlands), North America (USA, Canada), and Australia. Included papers investigated water and animal exposures most frequently. Recreational water was not a major source of sporadic illness in this review. The person-to-person pathway represented the most consistent finding, with all three studies reporting on contact with a symptomatic individual demonstrating correlations between exposure and disease. This applied particularly to the home environment, which is increasingly understood to be a significant setting for spread of Cryptosporidium infection. Further work on this would help support public health messaging on preventing spread of disease at home. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO number CRD42017056589.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicParasitic Infections and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207