MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1935309095 · doi:10.1159/000440860

An Aggregate of Four Anthrax Cases during the Dry Summer of 2011 in Epirus, Greece

2015· article· en· W1935309095 on OpenAlexaff
Georgios Gaitanis, Christos J. Lolis, Antonios Tsartsarakis, Chris Kalogeropoulos, Stamatina Leveidiotou-Stefanou, Aristidis Bartzokas, Ioannis D. Bassukas

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeninsulaDemographyGeographyDiseaseAggregate (composite)MedicineArchaeologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Human anthrax is currently a sporadic disease in Europe, without significant regional clustering. OBJECTIVE: To report an unexpected aggregate of anthrax cases and correlate local climatic factors with yearly anthrax admissions. METHODS: Clinical description of a geographical-temporal anthrax aggregate, correlation of disease admissions with local weather data in the period 2001-2014 and literature reports of anthrax clusters from Europe in the last 20 years. RESULTS: We identified 5 cases, all cutaneous: an unexpected aggregate of 4 cases in mid-summer 2011 (including a probable human-to-human transmission) and a sporadic case in August 2005, all in relatively dry periods (p < 0.05). Remarkably, 3/6 reports of human anthrax aggregates from Europe were observed in Balkan Peninsula countries in the year 2011. CONCLUSION: In the light of the predicted climatic change, unexpected anthrax aggregates during dry periods in southern Europe underscore the risk of future anthrax re-emergence on this continent.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologySame topicBacillus and Francisella bacterial researchFrench-language works237,207