MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1992901332 · doi:10.1172/jci28377

Twenty-first century plague The story of SARS

2006· article· en· W1992901332 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanne Hughes

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHistory of Science and Medicine
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPlague (disease)VirologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPandemicHistoryBiologyMedicineAncient historyOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)Pathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In the last 20 years, new and reemerging pathogens have appeared at alarming rates, garnering considerable attention from the scientific and public health communities and the media. Public health threats (e.g., West Nile virus, anthrax, SARS, and avian influenza) have increased concerns about our lack of preparedness to detect and respond to emerging infectious diseases domestically and internationally. The detection and characterization of a new disease caused by a previously unrecognized virus; its rapid global dissemination; and ultimately its control using traditional public health methods including isolation, quarantine, and contact tracing are the subject of Twenty-first century plague: the story of SARS by Thomas Abraham, an experienced journalist currently on the faculty of Hong Kong University. The author indicates that the book is written for “a general audience,” but its topic is relevant for clinicians, researchers, public health officials, policy makers, and historians interested in infectious disease epidemics. The introductory chapter provides useful background information on recent emerging infections and emphasizes the important zoonotic link found for many of them. The subsequent chapters describe the origin of the SARS epidemic in southern China, the introduction and spread of the disease in Hong Kong, the global dissemination of the disease and the public health response undertaken, and efforts to identify the causative agent (a previously unrecognized coronavirus). The concluding chapter discusses the SARS experience and lessons learned in the context of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, the current H5N1 influenza situation, and potential new pandemic threats. The author derived his information from published accounts in the scientific and lay media and from extensive interviews conducted primarily with persons in China and Hong Kong and at the World Health Organization (WHO). One of the book's most interesting aspects is the discussion of the early SARS outbreak in southern China: the lack of transparency on the part of Chinese government officials, the mistaken impression that the disease was caused by Chlamydia pneumoniae, the constraints placed on reporting the outbreak, and the timing in relation to a political leadership change in China. The book clearly captures the efforts of Chinese physicians to manage SARS patients and to control disease spread, yet it also emphasizes how valuable this knowledge would have been to clinicians and public health officials in many other countries had it been shared promptly. The discussion of the situation in Hong Kong captures the dramatic events involving a “superspreader,” whose overnight stay at a hotel precipitated global spread of the disease. Abraham describes the outbreaks in the Amoy Gardens housing complex and an Air China flight and the stigma experienced by affected individuals. The rivalry between the Hong Kong University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong is discussed, along with the frustrations over lack of access to vital information on the virus and the incredible courage of and psychological stress on health care workers. The book painfully describes the heroic efforts of the late Carlo Urbani, the WHO official in Vietnam who recognized early on the gravity of the situation and took aggressive action to control the disease in Hanoi, but not in time to prevent his own death. Other important aspects discussed include the outstanding leadership provided by the WHO in taking action by issuing the first Global Health Alert on March 12, 2003, and in rapidly developing international networks of clinicians, epidemiologists, and virologists to respond to the emergency. Among other notable achievements, this interdisciplinary collaborative approach resulted in the rapid identification and confirmation of the SARS etiologic agent by research teams in Hong Kong, Germany, and the United States. Finally, the description of the resourceful and determined efforts in assessing the role of civet cats and other exotic species in the wet animal markets in Guandong Province and urging implementation of control measures is fascinating reading. The book has a few shortcomings, although they do not detract from its overall value. A more complete assessment of the roles of all partners in the response could have been obtained by interviewing a broader range of sources, especially in Canada, the only western country to have an appreciable outbreak of the virus. The narrative is not always chronological and therefore is somewhat hard to follow (the time line in the appendix is helpful in this regard), and the references to multiple Centers for Disease Control is sometimes confusing. Also, there is no discussion of the work in The Netherlands to fulfill Koch’s postulates regarding disease causation or the episodes of disease transmission within a laboratory in Taiwan, Singapore, and China. The book provides an important summary of many aspects of the global experience with a new disease and discusses important lessons learned from the SARS response and their implications for dealing with the next global disease threat. A quotation from the final paragraph in the book is noteworthy in highlighting the critical importance of transparency and political will: “Governments have to recognize that a disease in any one part of the world is a threat to every other part of the world, and work together to fight common threats.”

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
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: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,029

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,005
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,005

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 Opus0,117
Tête enseignante GPT0,331
Écart entre enseignants0,213 · 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
GenreAutre

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

En bref

Citations31
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Clinical InvestigationMême sujetHistory of Science and MedicineTravaux en français237 207