Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In many developing countries, snakebites still represent a large public health concern.While envenomation may cause substantial morbidity and mortality, the bite itself may pose secondary risks, including infection.Research Questions: What is the prevalence of snakebite infections and what are the bacteria isolated from these infections?Methods: A systematic review of published data was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Studies were chosen from PubMed (NLM), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate), SciELO, and Embase (Elsevier).Studies included cohort, case-control or cross-sectional studies that assessed the prevalence of any of the following: infections in snakebites, the different bacteria identified, or surgical intervention secondary to snakebite infection.There were no exclusions based on age of subjects.All studies included were evaluated for bias using either the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) or the adapted NOS.Results: A total of 62 studies (from 525 identified articles) were included (n = 84,296 subjects).These studies were conducted between 1989 and 2022 and on the following continents: Asia (33 studies), the Americas (24 studies), Africa (four studies), and Europe (one study).All studies
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".