Hemotropic mycoplasmas (hemoplasmas) in indigenous populations and their dogs living in reservation areas, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although hemoplasma infection has been widely described in animals, a few studies have been conducted involving human populations, mostly as case reports. This was a cross-sectional epidemiological study that accessed hemoplasma infection in individuals and dogs from ten Indigenous communities of southern and southeastern Brazil. A total of 23/644 (3.6%) individuals of ten Indigenous communities tested positive to hemoplasmas by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) (cycle threshold; Ct ≤ 34.4), with 3/644 (0.5%) Mycoplasma haemocanis detection. In addition, 91/416 (21.9%) dogs were positive to hemoplasmas by qPCR, with 54/91 (59.3%) for M. haemocanis, 27/91 (29.7%) for Candidatus Mycoplasma haematoparvum, and 10/91 (11.0%) for both. Molecular diagnosis of M. haemocanis in Indigenous people herein may be consequence of daily close contact with dogs and different potential vectors. Although apparently healthy individuals, hemoplasma infection should be considered as differential diagnosis in likely overexposed populations, such as Indigenous individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".