Brucellosis in humans caused by <i>Brucella canis:</i> A scoping review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: is a potential cause of brucellosis in humans, but this disease has been poorly characterized. Procedure: A scoping review was completed. Results: infection in 68 individuals. The median age was 32 y (range: 17 mo to 71 y). Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, and malaise predominated.Specific treatments were reported for 30 individuals. A tetracycline (tetracycline, doxycycline, or minocycline) was the sole treatment or part of a combination treatment for most (21/30, 70%) individuals, followed by rifampin (9/30, 30%), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (7/30, 23%), and an aminoglycoside (gentamicin, streptomycin) (7/30, 23%). Clinical outcome was reported for 35 individuals. No mortalities were reported.A known or suspected source of exposure was reported for 56 cases; 45 (80%) were linked to dogs and 11 (20%) to laboratory exposure. Contact with pet dogs that had aborted or with aborted fetuses accounted for 31% of the canine exposures. Conclusion and clinical relevance: infection should be considered.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".