Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div> Enteric and parasitic infections such as soil-transmitted helminths cause considerable mortality and morbidity in low- and middle-income settings. Earthen household floors are common in many of these settings and could serve as a reservoir for enteric and parasitic pathogens, which can easily be transmitted to new hosts through direct or indirect contact. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish whether and to what extent improved household floors decrease the odds of enteric and parasitic infections among occupants compared with occupants living in households with unimproved floors. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we comprehensively searched four electronic databases for studies in low- and middle-income settings measuring household flooring as an exposure and self-reported diarrhoea or any type of enteric or intestinal-parasitic infection as an outcome. Metadata from eligible studies were extracted and transposed on to a study database before being imported into the R software platform for analysis. Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. In total 110 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, of which 65 were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis after applying study quality cut-offs. Random-effects meta-analysis suggested that households with improved floors had 0.75 times (95CI: 0.67–0.83) the odds of infection with any type of enteric or parasitic infection compared with household with unimproved floors. Improved floors gave a pooled protective OR of 0.68 (95CI: 0.58–0.8) for helminthic infections and 0.82 OR (95CI: 0.75–0.9) for bacterial or protozoan infections. Overall study quality was poor and there is an urgent need for high-quality experimental studies investigating this relationship. Nevertheless, this study indicates that household flooring may meaningfully contribute towards a substantial portion of the burden of disease for enteric and parasitic infections in low- and middle-income settings. </div>
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".