Estimation of the Parasitic Burden of Soil-Transmitted Helminths Among Pregnant Women in the Maharashtra State of India Using qPCR: A Community-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections are widespread in developing countries with inadequate sanitation facilities. These infections can lead to malnutrition, anemia, and other complications that can negatively impact both the mother’s and fetus’s health during pregnancy. This study aimed to estimate the burden of STH by Kato-Katz microscopy and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) in pregnant women from rural India. The diagnostic accuracy of these two methods was also compared. Material and Methods: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted in rural areas of Wardha district of Maharashtra state. We randomly selected and interviewed 688 pregnant women. A total of 534 (77.61%) participants gave stool samples. Two containers (60 mL) labeled with a unique identification number were given to pregnant women to collect stool samples for Kato-Katz microscopy and qPCR. Stool specimens were transported to an accredited lab and examined within 24 hours. Suitable examinations were conducted to compare sensitivity between two tests. Results: The results are presented for 534 participants who gave stool samples. The prevalence of any STH by Kato-Katz stool microscopy was 6.55% (95%CI 4.46–12.19), and that by qPCR was 20.41 (95%CI 17.53–29.40). The sensitivity of Kato-Katz microscopy was 29.17% compared to sensitivity of 90.83% by qPCR ( P = 0.001). Pregnant women with STH infection have a significantly lower weight gain during pregnancy, and the majority were either mild or moderate anemic compared to those without STH. Conclusion: The study highlighted significant differences in prevalence of STH among pregnant women by Kato-Katz microscopy and qPCR. The sensitivity of qPCR for detecting STH was higher than that of Kato-Katz microscopy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".