MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6901672858 · doi:10.60692/21wsa-68c02

Incidence of typhoid and paratyphoid fever in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan: results of the Surveillance for Enteric Fever in Asia Project

2022· article· en· W6901672858 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTyphoid feverParatyphoid feverEnteric feverIncidence (geometry)Blood cultureSalmonella typhiEpidemiologyPerforation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundPrecise enteric fever disease burden data are needed to inform prevention and control measures, including the use of newly available typhoid vaccines. We established the Surveillance for Enteric Fever in Asia Project (SEAP) to inform these strategies.MethodsFrom September, 2016, to September, 2019, we conducted prospective clinical surveillance for Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi (S Typhi) and Paratyphi (S Paratyphi) A, B, and C at health facilities in predetermined catchment areas in Dhaka, Bangladesh; Kathmandu and Kavrepalanchok, Nepal; and Karachi, Pakistan. Patients eligible for inclusion were outpatients with 3 or more consecutive days of fever in the last 7 days; inpatients with suspected or confirmed enteric fever; patients with blood culture-confirmed enteric fever from the hospital laboratories not captured by inpatient or outpatient enrolment and cases from the laboratory network; and patients with non-traumatic ileal perforation under surgical care. We used a hybrid surveillance model, pairing facility-based blood culture surveillance with community surveys of health-care use. Blood cultures were performed for enrolled patients. We calculated overall and age-specific typhoid and paratyphoid incidence estimates for each study site. Adjusted estimates accounted for the sensitivity of blood culture, the proportion of eligible individuals who consented and provided blood, the probability of care-seeking at a study facility, and the influence of wealth and education on care-seeking. We additionally calculated incidence of hospitalisation due to typhoid and paratyphoid.FindingsA total of 34 747 patients were enrolled across 23 facilitates (six tertiary hospitals, surgical wards of two additional hospitals, and 15 laboratory network sites) during the study period. Of the 34 303 blood cultures performed on enrolled patients, 8705 (26%) were positive for typhoidal Salmonella. Adjusted incidence rates of enteric fever considered patients in the six tertiary hospitals. Adjusted incidence of S Typhi, expressed per 100 000 person-years, was 913 (95% CI 765–1095) in Dhaka. In Nepal, the adjusted typhoid incidence rates were 330 (230–480) in Kathmandu and 268 (202–362) in Kavrepalanchok. In Pakistan, the adjusted incidence rates per hospital site were 176 (144–216) and 103 (85–126). The adjusted incidence rates of paratyphoid (of which all included cases were due to S Paratyphi A) were 128 (107–154) in Bangladesh, 46 (34–62) and 81 (56–118) in the Nepal sites, and 23 (19–29) and 1 (1–1) in the Pakistan sites. Adjusted incidence of hospitalisation was high across sites, and overall, 2804 (32%) of 8705 patients with blood culture-confirmed enteric fever were hospitalised.InterpretationAcross diverse communities in three south Asian countries, adjusted incidence exceeded the threshold for "high burden" of enteric fever (100 per 100 000 person-years). Incidence was highest among children, although age patterns differed across sites. The substantial disease burden identified highlights the need for control measures, including improvements to water and sanitation infrastructure and the implementation of typhoid vaccines.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology→French-language works237,207→