Recommendations for Management of Endemic Diseases and Travel Medicine in Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients and Donors: Latin America.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Recommendations for Management of Endemic Diseases and Travel Medicine in Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients and Donors: Latin America clinical practice guideline is intended to guide clinicians caring for solid-organ transplant (SOT) donors, candidates and recipients regarding infectious diseases (ID) issues related to this geographical region, mostly located in the tropics. These recommendations are based on both systematic reviews of relevant literature and expert opinion from both transplant ID and travel medicine specialists. The guidelines provide recommendations for risk evaluation and laboratory investigation, as well as management and prevention of infection of the most relevant endemic diseases of Latin America. This summary includes a brief description of the guideline recommendations but does not include the complete rationale and references for each recommendation, which is available in the online version of the article, published in this journal as a supplement. The supplement contains 10 reviews referring to endemic or travel diseases (eg, tuberculosis, Chagas disease [ChD], leishmaniasis, malaria, strongyloidiasis and schistosomiasis, travelers diarrhea, arboviruses, endemic fungal infections, viral hepatitis, and vaccines) and an illustrative section with maps (http://www.pmourao.com/map/). Contributors included experts from 13 countries (Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, France, Italy, Peru, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay) representing four continents (Asia, the Americas and Europe), along with scientific and medical societies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.010 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".