A cross‐sectional study of Q fever in Camels: Risk factors for infection, the role of small ruminants and public health implications for desert‐dwelling pastoral communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Q fever represents an important 'neglected zoonosis', with high prevalences recorded across the Middle East region. Among rural desert-dwelling communities in the region, camel milk is largely consumed raw, due to perceptions of dromedaries as a uniquely clean livestock species mentioned in the Qur'an and Islamic hadith, while milk from other livestock species is usually boiled. As a result, camels present a unique public health threat among such communities from milk-borne pathogens, including Coxiella burnetii. In view of this, a cross-sectional study was conducted among dromedary herds in southern Jordan between September 2017 and October 2018, including 404 camels from 121 randomly selected herds. In addition, 510 household members associated with these herds were interviewed regarding potential high-risk practices for zoonotic transmission. Weight adjusted camel population seroprevalence for C. burnetii was 49.6% (95% CI: 44.7-54.5), with evidence of maternally derived immunity in calves ≤6 months old. Adjusted herd-level prevalence was 76.0% (95% CI 72.7-80.2). It was estimated 30.4% (144/477) of individuals consumed raw milk from infected herds monthly or more. Following multivariable logistic regression analysis, seropositive status in camels was found to be associated with increasing age, high herd tick burdens, keeping the herd together throughout the year including when calving, and owning larger (>50) sheep and goat flocks, with goats presenting a higher risk than sheep. Racing camel status was found to be protective. Socioculturally appropriate interventions aimed at raising awareness of potential risks associated with drinking raw camel milk, alongside appropriate livestock management interventions, should be considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".