MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289261376 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057649

<i>Strongyloides stercoralis</i> prevalence in solid-organ and haematopoietic stem cell transplant candidates and recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2022· review· en· W4289261376 on OpenAlexaff
Sapha Barkati, Faheel Naeem, Lindsay Hales, Curtis Quan, Michael Libman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasites and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrongyloides stercoralisStrongyloidiasisMedicineStrongyloidesPopulationIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewTransplantationInternal medicineImmunologyMEDLINEEnvironmental healthHelminths

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Strongyloides stercoralis is an intestinal helminth ubiquitous in tropical and subtropical regions worldwide. It persists in the human host for a lifetime as a result of autoinfection and if undetected and untreated, can lead to increased morbidity and high mortality in immunocompromised individuals such as the transplant population. Transplant patients, including solid-organ and haematopoietic stem cell transplants (SOT and HSCT, respectively), are at a high risk of hyperinfection and disseminated strongyloidiasis. Unfortunately screening is often not systematically performed. Prevalence estimates of Strongyloides in this high-risk population is not well studied. Through this systematic review, we aim to summarise the descriptive evidence on Strongyloides prevalence in SOT and HSCT patients, including diagnostic and screening practices alongside the cases of hyperinfection, disseminated strongyloidiasis and the mortality rate in this population. Methods and analyses Through the use of various online library databases, we will conduct a systematic review including relevant literature on the prevalence of Strongyloides in SOT and HSCT patients as well as studies assessing hyperinfection and disseminated strongyloidiasis in this patient population. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study Design strategy and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be used to determine a final subset of studies for analysis. Quality assessment for case series and case reports will be determined by a modified quality assessment tool developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH), and the CARE guidelines, respectively. We will provide a narrative synthesis of the findings pertaining to the primary and secondary outcomes of interest (prevalence of Strongyloides and mortality rate in transplant population, respectively) alongside the associated 95% CI. Estimates from individual studies will be pooled using a random effects model. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review does not require formal ethical approval since no primary data will be collected. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and relevant conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021269305.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.026
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.003

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
GenreProtocol

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicParasites and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207