Rabies seropositive individuals, dogs, and healthcare professionals without prior vaccination in four Brazilian Indigenous communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous communities are reportedly among the most vulnerable populations exposed to rabies worldwide. Accordingly, this study aimed to assess rabies serum titers from healthy Indigenous individuals, their dogs, and healthcare professionals of four Indigenous communities from São Paulo state, southeastern Brazil. Blood samples were collected, and an epidemiological questionnaire applied. The samples were processed by Fluorescent Antibody Virus Neutralization (FAVN) method. Overall, 35/299 (11.7%) individuals and 22/166 (13.2%) dogs without prior vaccination were seropositive. Furthermore, 4/18 (16.7%) healthcare professionals were seropositive, with only one reporting prior rabies vaccination. The lack of rabies titers in the remaining 14/18 (77.8%) healthcare professionals indicates no immune protection. Seropositivity was associated with being from the Kopenoty community (p = 0.026) and with owners reporting seeing their dogs in contact with bats (p = 0.022). In summary, these results should be considered as a warning for the risk of human-dog rabies exposure and infection, mainly due to bat contact.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".