Watch-and-wait approach for inactive echinococcal cysts: scoping review update since the issue of the WHO-IWGE Expert Consensus and current perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This work aims to provide an update of knowledge on the evolution of inactive cystic echinococcosis (CE) cysts (CE4-CE5) managed by 'watch-and-wait', by means of a scoping review of the literature published after the publication of the WHO-IWGE (Informal Working Group on Echinococcosis) Expert Consensus document in 2010. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 31 articles were included. Population ultrasound-based studies showed that spontaneously inactivated CE cysts represent 50.2% (95% confidence interval 38.7-61.8) of all detected untreated CE cysts, and that the prevalence of CE4-CE5 cysts tends to increase with age. Four longitudinal population-based studies showed that CE cysts naturally tend to evolve towards inactivation and that spontaneously inactivated cysts reactivate in a minority of cases. This was confirmed by four hospital-based studies, showing that spontaneously inactivated cysts reactivate rarely, while rate of reactivation is higher if inactivity was obtained posttreatment. It was not possible to drive conclusions on any difference in the clinical course of infection in immunocompromised or pregnant patients. SUMMARY: CE cysts tend to evolve spontaneously to inactivation over time. The published literature supports the safety of the watch-and-wait approach for inactive cysts, sparing treatment to a substantial proportion of asymptomatic patients. A regular follow-up with ultrasound of all inactive cysts is required to detect reactivations.
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 | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".