MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2770464545 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxx153

Small bite, big problem: Understanding severe microcephaly in Canada

2017· article· en· W2770464545 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Chantal Nelson, Alex Demarsh, Steven P. Miller, Shaun K. Morris, Charlotte Moore Hepburn, Ari Bitnun, Aideen M. Moore, Michael Shevell, Jane Evans, Joanne Tataryn

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInfectious Encephalopathies and Encephalitis
Établissements canadiensUniversity of ManitobaMcGill UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationPublic Health Agency of Canada
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMicrocephalyMedicinePediatrics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A 6-week-old male infant is brought to clinic for a checkup. He has severe microcephaly. On physical exam, the infant is afebrile and has normal vital signs. Head circumference is below the first percentile. Weight and height are at the 50th percentile. He is alert though irritable and difficult to console. Examination of the eyes demonstrated that the pupils react normally, red reflexes are present, there are no opacities, and extraocular movements are normal. He transiently fixes on faces. Facial movements are normal. There is no drooling. Hearing is grossly intact. Motor examination reveals diminished axial tone with increased tone in the four extremities and a paucity of spontaneous movement in all four limbs. Muscle stretch reflexes are increased throughout the four extremities with spread and sustained clonus at the ankles. He withdraws the four limbs briskly to light touch. The atonic neck reflex is not elicited. Seizures were not observed during the examination. Both parents went on a hiking trip in Northeastern Brazil for 2 weeks. The child’s mother recalls having a rash and some muscle pain during her trip. The rash was not bothersome, and went away after a few days. Approximately 2 weeks after returning to Canada, she discovered that she was pregnant. Ultrasound findings showed intracranial calcifications at the 20-week scan. The pregnancy was otherwise uneventful. Routine antenatal serology was normal. There were no chemical or toxic exposures in utero, and his mother did not consume alcohol, smoke or use drugs around time of conception or during pregnancy. There is no positive family history of microcephaly. As a result of the clinical presentation and travel history of the mother, serum samples were collected from both mother and infant for testing. Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test serology confirmed the presence of Zika virus-specific antibodies in both the mother and infant’s serum. • The epidemiology of severe microcephaly in Canada is not well known. In response to the emerging Zika virus public health threat, the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) launched a multi-year study in June 2016 to gain a better understanding of the epidemiology and etiology of severe microcephaly in Canada (1). • In the first 6 months of the CPSP severe microcephaly study, 24 possible cases were identified. Of those, 17 cases were confirmed with severe microcephaly and questionnaires were completed by the reporting physicians. To date, no Zika-associated severe microcephaly cases have been identified by the study. • Severe microcephaly is often detected prenatally; however, it may also be detected at birth or in early infancy. Severe microcephaly is a more extreme form of microcephaly, where a baby’s head is much smaller than expected (less than three standard deviations below the expected mean for gestational age and sex). Children born with severe microcephaly can experience a range of complications including: seizures, developmental delay, intellectual disability, hearing loss and/or vision problems (2). • There is no single cause of microcephaly and causality is often not readily discernible. • Infants and children can acquire Zika virus infection congenitally or postnatally (3). The impact of postnatal infection on the developing central nervous system remains unclear. Zika virus testing is recommended for infants born to women with laboratory evidence of confirmed or probable Zika virus infection regardless of the presence or absence of phenotypic abnormalities (4). • Infants should be tested for Zika virus infection when born to women with confirmed or suspected Zika virus infection in pregnancy, or if they have unexplained microcephaly, intracranial calcifications, ventriculomegaly or major structural central nervous system abnormalities or other symptoms of congenital Zika virus infection in whom the mother had potential exposure to the virus. This testing should include serology (IgM and PRNT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of serum (umbilical cord or infant sample) and placental tissue. If cerebrospinal fluid is sampled, it can also be sent for PCR and serology (5). • If an infant has microcephaly, arrange for MRI of the head, as well as audiologic and ophthalmologic assessments. • All physicians should inquire about possible etiology, including details of travel history that include countries visited, and dates of departure and return. • If a child is seen in clinic with severe microcephaly, a CPSP severe microcephaly study questionnaire should be completed. • In January 2017, the CPSP launched a congenital Zika syndrome study (6). Physicians who see a case of severe microcephaly suspected to be associated with Zika virus should complete a questionnaire for the severe microcephaly study AND the congenital Zika syndrome study. • For more information, please reference the Canadian Paediatric Society Practice Point entitled “Zika Virus: What does a physician caring for children in Canada need to know?” (7).

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)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,052
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,377

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,002
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

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 Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,215 · 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'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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

En bref

Citations1
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetInfectious Encephalopathies and EncephalitisTravaux en français237 207