Factors associated with the development of leprosy in Brazilian contacts: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People who interact with leprosy patients in their environment, neighborhood, family, or social relationships are at risk to develop the disease. This systematic review investigated the risk and protective factors associated with the development of leprosy in Brazilian contacts. The studies were found in Cochrane Library, PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Virtual Health Library, grey literature and hand search until July 2021. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two investigators. The quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020160680). Seventeen articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria (n=544). The immunological and molecular factors, such as Anti-phenolic Glycolipid Antibodies (Anti-PGL-1) seropositivity, negative Mitsuda test, absence of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) scar, positive Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) in blood; age and race; conviviality, education, contact time and type of contact, as well as elements related to the index case (bacilloscopic index; genetic conditions, family relationships), and some combined factors were shown to be relevant risk factors associated with the development of the disease in Brazilian leprosy contacts. The protective factors reported were the presence of one or more BCG scars, positive Mitsuda test, and education level. All selected studies were considered of high quality according to NOS. The knowledge of disease-related risk and protective factors provides the scientific basis for decision-making in the management of the disease in leprosy contacts.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".