Risk Factors and Outcomes for Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Compared with Seasonal Influenza in Hospitalized Children in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical features and outcomes of children hospitalized in China with pandemic (p)H1N1 between 2009 and 2010 versus seasonal influenza A between 2008 and 2009. METHODS: Systematic review of laboratory-confirmed admissions to the Children's Hospital, Soochow University (Suzhou, China). RESULTS: Seventy-five children younger than 14 years of age were admitted with pH1N1, 70 with H3N2 and three with seasonal H1N1. With pH1N1, the mean age was older (36 months versus seven months), the length of stay was longer (nine days versus seven days), underlying conditions were more common (29% versus 15%), anemia was more common (11% versus 0%) (P<0.05), with trends toward more secondary bacterial pneumonia and intensive care unit care, compared with seasonal influenza. Two of the 75 children with pH1N1 died versus no deaths in children with seasonal influenza. None of the children had received pH1N1, seasonal influenza, conjugated pneumococal or Haemophilus influenzae b vaccines. CONCLUSION: In China, children hospitalized with pH1N1 influenza differed from case series in Canada, Argentina and the United States, suggesting that locale, background and health care system influenced the presentation and outcomes of pandemic and seasonal influenza.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".