Landscape of guidance documents used at TropNet and GeoSentinel centres for the clinical management of schistosomiasis outside endemic areas: A systematic appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnostic and treatment approaches for schistosomiasis in individual patients, outside endemic areas, are not standardised. This study aimed to appraise the reference documents that the experts from the TropNet and GeoSentinel networks use in practice as guidance for the clinical management of their patients with (suspect) schistosomiasis. METHODS: We systematically appraised the following data from the referenced guidance documents: i) document type, ii) case definitions, iii) diagnostic techniques envisaged; iv) treatment recommendations; v) follow-up recommendations; vi) screening recommendations, and vii) symptom-based diagnostic suspicion. RESULTS: Twenty-two of the 30 responders (73.3 %) indicated 19 reference documents, three of which were WHO material not intended for individual clinical management. Only 4/19 (21.1 %) documents were national recommendations; no international guideline was indicated. Case definitions were explicitly presented in only one document (1/19; 5.3 %). Diagnostic tools were detailed in 11/16 (68.8 %) and follow-up guidance in 8/16 (50 %) documents. Treatment guidance was provided in 14/16 (87.5 %) documents. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in clinical guidance was evident, although with noticeable overlap at least for chronic schistosomiasis. This confirms the need to formalise case definitions, which should be used to design trials to rigorously assess diagnostic tools and treatment schemes, and eventually come to harmonization of clinical management guidance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".