West Nile virus: lessons from the 21st century
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: West Nile virus (WNV) first appeared in the United States in 1999, causing illness and death in birds, horses, and humans. While the initial outbreak of this sometimes deadly viral disease was limited to the northeastern United States, the virus had an inexorable migration across the continental United States over the next 3 years, causing huge losses among the affected species. The purpose of this review is to present currently available information regarding the epi‐demiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of WNV infection. Veterinarians, particularly those in an emergency practice, serve as an important source of reliable information regarding this disease for animal owners and the public in general. Data sources: Data sources used for the preparation of this review include computer‐based searches of PubMed and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) abstracts. A search in PubMed using ‘West Nile’ retrieved 1468 ‘hits’ or references, while a similar search in CAB abstracts produced 815 references. Additional information was obtained from various meeting proceedings, particularly data presented in abstract form, and from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website dedicated to WNV. Human data synthesis: Prior to the mid‐1990s, reported large‐scale epidemics of WNV infection in humans predominantly presented as acute, mild, febrile disease, sometimes associated with lymphadenopathy and skin rash. The recent large epidemic in the United States, in contrast, has prominently featured encephalitis, particularly among the elderly. Additionally, polio‐encephalomyelitis‐like complications resulting in long‐term neurologic sequelae have been reported. There are many WNV‐permissive native avian and mosquito hosts in the Unites States and there appear to be few limitations to the spread of the disease in the United States. It is expected that the virus will be identified in all 48 continental states, Mexico, and Canada by the end of 2003. Veterinary data synthesis: The horse is the animal species most affected by the recent WNV epidemic in the United States, and losses to the equine industry have been large and unprecedented. A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)‐approved vaccine against WNV has been in use in horses since 2001 and appears to be effective in limiting the incidence of disease in well‐vaccinated populations. WNV infection has been documented in other species of mammals, including camelids (alpaca/llamas) and dogs, and veterinarians should include WNV as a differential diagnosis for animals presenting with clinical signs consistent with central nervous system infection. A large concern exists for endangered bird populations, particularly birds of prey, whether in zoos or in the wild.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».