MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1867326761 · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.2002.66.753

The epidemiology of tick-borne relapsing fever in the United States.

2002· article· en· W1867326761 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark S. Dworkin, Phyllis C. Shoemaker, Curtis L. Fritz, Mark E Dowell, Donald E. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpidemiologyrelapsing feverDemographyDiseaseGeographyVirologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each year, many residents of and visitors to endemic regions of the western United States are exposed to the vector of tick-borne relapsing fever (TBRF), an underrecognized and underreported disease. Through review of report forms and literature review, we identified 450 cases of TBRF acquired in the United States in 11 western states (and in British Columbia by a U.S. resident) from January 1977 to January 2000. Exposure sites were in forested areas, at varying elevations, in mountainous regions (Cascade, Rocky Mountain, San Bernardino, and Sierra Nevada ranges) of the United States and Canada and in limestone caves in central Texas. Only 13 counties accounted for approximately 50% of all cases. Forty percent of the cases were not residents of the state where TBRF exposure occurred, including 7% from 11 states where TBRF is not endemic. TBRF is endemic in the United States and is a disease affecting travelers, who may return home with the disease to areas where physicians are not familiar with it.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and HygieneSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207