MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411043959 · doi:10.2196/67544

Risk Factors for Typhoid Fever: Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4411043959 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Portia Boakye Okyere, Sampson Twumasi-Ankrah, Sam Newton, Samuel Nkansah Darko, Michael Owusu-Ansah, Eric Darko, Francis Opoku Agyapong, Hyon Jin Jeon, Yaw Adu‐Sarkodie, Florian Marks, Ellis Owusu‐Dabo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintTyphoid feverEnvironmental healthMedicineVirologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Typhoid fever, a significant global health problem, demonstrates a multifaceted transmission pattern. Knowledge of the factors driving its transmission is critical for developing effective control strategies and optimizing resource allocation. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to comprehensively synthesize evidence on risk factors associated with typhoid fever transmission from 1928 to 2024. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar databases using keywords related to risk, contributors, determinants, and causes of typhoid fever. We followed a registered protocol to support our search and triangulated the results. RESULTS: Overall, we retrieved 1614 articles, of which 219 were reviewed. Of these, 109 addressed multiple, non-mutually exclusive typhoid fever risk factors. Unsurprisingly, of the total articles reviewed on risk factors, approximately 70.6% (77/109) originated from the Asian continent (51/109, 46.8%) and the African continent (26/109, 23.9%). Half of the articles (55/109, 50.5%) focused on risk factors related to demographic and socioeconomic transmission, while 44% (48/109) of the articles examined foodborne transmission. Additional risk factors included water, sanitation, and hygiene practices: waterborne transmissions (45/109, 41.3%) and sanitation and hygiene practices (34/109, 31.2%), travel-related risk (19/109, 17.4%), antimicrobial use (14/109, 12.8%), climate-related factors (15/109, 13.8%), environment-related factors (9/109, 8.3%), typhoid carriers (11/109, 10.1%), and host-related risk factors (6/109, 5.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies demographic and socioeconomic factors as key drivers of typhoid transmission, underscoring the need for targeted interventions. Strengthening street food regulation in urban Asia and investing in water infrastructure in rural Africa can significantly mitigate risk. Integrating water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions with typhoid vaccines can reduce immediate exposure while enhancing long-term immunity. Prioritizing these strategies in schools and high-risk communities is essential for sustainable typhoid control. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to assess risk factor causality and vaccine impact, guiding more effective public health interventions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology→French-language works237,207→