MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412487981

Human infections with the raccoon roundworm, <i>Baylisascaris procyonis:</i> A scoping review.

2025· review· en· W4412487981 on OpenAlexaff
J. Scott Weese, Jason W. Stull

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZoologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: , is a gastrointestinal parasite with zoonotic implications. Objective: infections in humans. Procedure: OVID), Web of Science, and CAB Abstracts databases. Results: Sixty infections were identified. Most (38, 75%) were in males and the median age was 2.9 y (range: 9 mo to 73 y). Forty-seven (78%) individuals had neurological disease (9 with concurrent ocular disease), 11 had ocular disease alone, 1 had eosinophilic cardiac pseudotumor, and 1 was an incidental autopsy finding. Clinical signs of neurological disease were highly variable and progressive, with vague initial signs and symptoms. Ocular disease was most often manifested as diffuse unilateral subacute neuroretinitis, retinal lesions, and painless loss of vision and visual acuity. Outcomes were reported for 42 individuals with neurological disease: 8 (19%) died, 4 (10%) fully recovered, and the remaining 30 (71%) had mild to significant neurological residual deficits. Most (7/10, 70%) individuals with solely ocular disease had permanent vision loss. Conclusion and clinical relevance: The severity of the disease, poor response to treatment, and widespread presence of the parasite in areas where raccoons are endemic indicate a need for awareness among the public, healthcare providers, and veterinarians.

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)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicParasitic Infections and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207