ArticleParasites & vectors2025
Capillariid diversity in archaeological material from the New and the Old World: clustering and artificial intelligence approaches.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCapillariid nematode eggs have been reported in archaeological material in both the New and the Old World, mainly in Europe and South America. They have been found in various types of samples, as coprolites, sediments from latrines, pits, or burial. Modern parasitological records show that around 300 species of capillariids have been described in all vertebrate taxa, including humans, making it a very diversified group. The main proposal of this work is to characterize and identify capillariid eggs found in archaeological sites from Europe and Brazil.
methodsA total of 39 samples of archeological sites from Europe, deposited in the paleoparasitological collection of the University Marie & Louis Pasteur, Besançon, France was analyzed. In addition, 80 coprolites from the pre-Colombian archaeological site Gruta do Gentio II, Brazil, deposited in the Paleogenetic Laboratory at Oswaldo Cruz Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, were evaluated. Samples were treated according to the protocols of each laboratory and then analyzed under light microscopy. Capillariid eggs were classified according to length, width, plugs, and eggshell sizes, and statistical analysis of the morphometric dataset was performed. Using a reference dataset of specimens provided by both Institutional Collections, three approaches to species identification were applied: discriminant analysis, hierarchical clustering, and artificial intelligence/machine learning.
resultsA total of 10 samples from Europe and 4 from Brazil were positive for capillariid eggs, showing 13 different morphotypes. As European samples were mainly collected from latrines and pits, parasite-host information was absent, and consequently, species identification was impaired. In contrast, the availability of host information rendered the identification of capillariid species for the Brazilian coprolites. The new methodology indicates capillariid species identified on various samples, resulting in the presence of Capillaria exigua (Dujardin, 1845) in feline coprolite, Baruscapillaria resecta (Dujardin, 1845) in opossum, and Aonchotheca bovis (Schnyder, 1906) in bovid, in the Brazilian site, while in European sites, Capillaria venusta (Freitas e Mendonça, 1958), Aonchotheca myoxinitelae (Diesing, 1851), Eucoleus madjerdae (Bernard, 1964), and Baruscapillaria spiculata (Freitas, 1933) were found.
conclusionsThe study provides new results by applying innovative methodologies for parasite identification and gaining insights into the past host (human or animal)/parasite relationships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.