MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4229958713 · doi:10.1093/fampra/cml021

Flu pandemic

2006· letter· en· W4229958713 sur OpenAlexaff
Martin Dawes

Notice bibliographique

RevueFamily Practice · 2006
Typeletter
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirologyFamily medicineInternal medicineOutbreakDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A flu pandemic is inevitable. What is not known is how many will be affected, and when it will happen. We are currently in pandemic alert period phase three of the six international phases for a pandemic outlined by the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/index.html). Once cases begin to occur in each country it will take only a few weeks before influenza is widespread. The scientific debate about whether it will be possible to stop a pandemic has not reached any real conclusions.1,2 An additional uncertainty is how we will react as health professionals. In their article Shaw et al. explored the reaction of GPs to the problems of providing primary care during an influenza pandemic.3 During such an event as many as 30% of the population may be temporarily incapacitated and there will be an excess number of deaths over and above those seen during normal influenza epidemics. It is estimated that a GP may expect to see 50 new cases per week for an average list size, which would rise to 100 at the height of the pandemic. As 30% of other GPs may be sick the actual volume might be several times higher. In response to this potential humanitarian health crisis, the authors found that Tasmanian GPs were committed to providing primary care even though they would be putting themselves and their families at risk. The key role in primary care will be reassurance of well patients, the assessment and management of patients unwell with influenza, continuing care of unaffected patients and looking after the psychological consequences of the disaster. They acknowledged the risk to themselves and were anxious that governments were not providing the resources to minimize that risk. A number of practices felt that they had not adequate supplies of masks, gloves, gowns and antiviral medication. The most important conclusion from this study is that, as health professionals, it is up to us to organize the care in our own practices so that when the epidemic does come we will know what to do. The differing contexts in which each of us practice means that national and even local plans cannot really help us prepare for the day-to-day management of care during a pandemic. It is the government's responsibility to make sure that practices can have access to the medical supplies that we need but we should be drawing up our own practice plan. In addition to supplies we need to have organized various elements of practice such as methods of contacting each other and other health services. Do you have a system for seeing patients suspected of influenza that minimizes the risk of transmission to other patients? Do your staff know what the assessment criteria are for a potential avian flu case (Box 1)? Clinical assessment criteria for suspected avian flu, whether bird to human or human to human Clinical assessment criteria for suspected avian flu, whether bird to human or human to human Information about preparing a practice is still fragmentary but several national websites, for example http://www.rcgp.org.uk/default.aspx?page=3908, are very helpful. They contain most of the elements that are important but not immediately obvious; for example making sure we have enough cleaning fluid to wipe down surfaces. There is much discussion on various medical discussion forums and journals about whether we would continue to practice during an epidemic with many individuals declaring that they would not do so. The last word on this part of the debate should go to this GP ‘Caring for patients is a moral imperative during a pandemic influenza outbreak. I wouldn't be much of a human being if I closed up and headed for thehills.’

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: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,084
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,280

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0170,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0840,024

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 Opus0,128
Tête enseignante GPT0,448
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · 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

Citations3
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueFamily PracticeMême sujetCOVID-19 and Mental HealthTravaux en français237 207