MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410846263 · doi:10.1101/2025.05.27.25328414

Diagnostic Value Of Turbid Urine In Urogenital Schistosomiasis In Rural Chad Affected By Climate Change Effects: Case Of The Lake Chad Region

2025· preprint· en· W4410846263 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Didier Lalaye, Tom P.V.M. de Jong, Mirjam de Bruijn, Marius Madjissem, Nan Arabe Lodoum

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrand Challenges Canada
KeywordsClimate changeSchistosomiasisValue (mathematics)GeographyEcologyBiologyHelminthsZoologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction Urogenital schistosomiasis remains a public health issue in sub-Saharan Africa. Diagnosis traditionally relies on detecting eggs in urine or identifying haematuria. The clinical relevance of urine turbidity remains poorly studied. Objective To assess the relevance of the macroscopic appearance of urine, particularly turbidity, as a presumptive indicator of urogenital schistosomiasis. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted with 299 participants in Ngouri, Chad. Urine appearance was visually assessed and compared with urine dipstick results for haematuria detection. Results Cloudy urine was observed in 20.4% of samples. Among these, 95.1% tested positive on the dipstick, compared to only 16.9% of samples with normal appearance (p < 0.001). Cloudy urine thus appears to be a strong predictive marker. Conclusion In low-resource settings, visual urine assessment combined with symptom analysis can help guide screening and support presumptive treatment. However, the lack of parasitological confirmation remains a significant limitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicClimate Change and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→