Profiling disease burden and Borrelia seroprevalence in Canadians with complex and chronic illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lyme disease, caused by vector-borne Borrelia bacteria, can present with diverse multi-system symptoms that resemble other conditions. The objective of this study was to evaluate disease presentations and Borrelia seroreactivity in individuals experiencing a spectrum of chronic and complex illnesses. We recruited 157 participants from Eastern Canada who reported one or more diagnoses of Lyme disease, neurological, rheumatic, autoimmune, inflammatory, gastrointestinal, or cardiovascular illnesses, or were asymptomatic and presumed healthy. Intake categories were used to classify participants based on their perceived proximity to Lyme disease, distinguishing between those with a disclosed history of Borrelia infection, those with lookalike conditions (e.g. fibromyalgia syndrome), and those with unrelated ailments (e.g. intestinal polyps). Participants completed three questionnaires, the SF-36 v1, SIQR, and HMQ, to capture symptoms and functional burden, and provided blood serum for analysis at an accredited diagnostic lab. Two-tiered IgG and IgM serological assessments (whole cell ELISA and Western blot) were performed in a blinded fashion on all samples. The pattern of symptoms and functional burden were similarly profound in the presumptive Lyme and Lyme-like disease categories. Borrelia seroprevalence across the study cohort was 10% for each of IgG and IgM, and occurred within and beyond the Lyme disease intake category. Western blot positivity in the absence of reactive ELISA was also substantial. Fibromyalgia was the most common individual diagnostic tag disclosed by two-tier IgG-positive participants who did not report a history of Lyme disease. Within the IgG seropositive cohort, the presence of antibodies against the 31 kDa Outer Surface Protein A (OspA) was associated with significantly better health outcomes. Previously, this marker has been linked to treatment-refractory Lyme arthritis. Overall, our findings support prior observations of phenotypic overlap between Lyme and other diseases. Seropositivity associated with non-specific symptoms and functional impairment warrants further mechanistic investigation and therapeutic optimization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".