Intestinal parasites in stool testing among refugees at a primary care clinic in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enteric parasites are endemic in many of the countries from which refugees originate. Clinical guidelines vary in approaches to screening for and treating intestinal parasites in refugee receiving countries. This study aims to investigate the prevalence and species of intestinal parasites identified in stool ova and parasite (O&P) specimens in a sample of newly arrived refugees in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 1042 refugee patients rostered at a specialized primary care clinic in Toronto from December 2011 to September 2016. Patients who completed recommended stool O&P analyses were included. Basic sociodemographic and clinical variables and results of stool O&P were examined. RESULTS: 419 patients (40.2%) had a stool O&P positive for any protozoan or helminth species. Sixty-nine patients (6.6%) had clinically significant parasite species (excluding B hominis, D fragilis, and E dispar, given their lower risk for causing symptoms/complications): 2.3% had clinically significant protozoans and 4.2% had helminths on stool analysis. CONCLUSION: Given the relatively low prevalence of clinically significant parasites identified, our findings do not support universal screening for enteric parasites with stool O&P among refugee claimants/asylum seekers. However, stool analysis should be considered in certain clinical situations, as part of a more tailored approach.
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) | 0.003 | 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".