MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1643120480 · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.01025.x

RESPONSE LETTER TO DR. MORROW ET AL.

2007· article· en· W1643120480 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gary Reiss, Emmet B. Keeffe

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueEscherichia coli research studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBloody diarrheaOutbreakDiarrheaEpidemiologyPediatricsInternal medicinePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: Dr. Morrow et al. have several concerns regarding our review of a nursing home outbreak of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC)-associated diarrhea. First, they are concerned that our case definition does not adequately describe the outbreak. Second, they fear that we overstate the association between spinach and the epidemic. Finally, they wish to clarify that the lack of reports of similar outbreaks does not mean that they did not occur. The primary difference between our report and the San Mateo County Health Department (SMCHD) epidemiological investigation stems from the strictness of the case definition used. A case definition of two or more loose stools within a 24-hour period was used in our report. As Dr. Morrow et al. point out, this should instead read, “any resident or employee of the retirement community experiencing two or more episodes of diarrhea within a 24-hour period between September 21, 2003, and November 3, 2003.” We stand corrected. The stricter definition later adopted by SMCHD required the following criteria: (1) laboratory confirmation of E. coli O157:H7 infection or (2) bloody diarrhea, hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), or thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). This definition, although more specific, is not at all sensitive. Our goal as clinicians is to describe the outbreak in terms useful to the physicians who will treat these fragile patients. As our review of the literature reveals, most affected geriatric patients do not have positive blood cultures, bloody diarrhea, and HUS or TTP. Although a strict definition may be appropriate for the epidemiologist, it would not be useful for the clinician. Many cases would be missed; many patients would die. Although it is true that diarrhea is indeed frequent in a geriatric population, this does not discount the presence of epidemics or even make them particularly difficult to recognize. Our authors are intimately familiar with the patients involved; indeed, one was at that time the primary physician for the involved facility. The diarrhea occurring during the period from September 21, 2003, to November 3, 2003, did not represent the status quo. Finally, the San Mateo epidemiologists point out that using this case definition makes it difficult to determine the incubation period for cases. This is a valuable point, and we defer to their outbreak assessment, as cited in our original article. Their second concern is with the implication of spinach as a cause of the outbreak. They agree that spinach is a plausible culprit in the initial outbreak, based on a case-controlled analysis, but point out that we overstate this finding by applying it to our looser case definition, because these cases were not included in their analysis. We appreciate this being pointed out, because this may well weaken the statistical association. Additionally, they note that there may be person-to-person spread. We agree. Indeed, a “second-wave” phenomenon is commonly seen in EHEC outbreaks.1,2 The relationship between spinach and this outbreak should be viewed as a statistical association, with a plausible mechanism based on laboratory research, not as a confirmed causal relationship. Finally, they point out that the limited number of prior reports should not imply that they did not occur. We could not agree more and would like to point out that much of the literature that is available comes from Canada, perhaps representing a more-permissive environment for the public reporting of these deadly outbreaks.3–6 We appreciate the input from SMCHD. We encourage those interested in EHEC O157:H7 to read our report from a clinical perspective and SMCHD's epidemiological assessment of this outbreak. This letter was authored equally by Dr. Reiss and Dr. Keeffe, neither of whom received any financial support or sponsorship.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,029
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,062

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,029
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0030,004
Science ouverte0,0040,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0290,026
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0180,015

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,320
Écart entre enseignants0,309 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society→Même sujetEscherichia coli research studies→Travaux en français237 207→