MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967253382 · doi:10.1002/jcp.23030

Tracking the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus in the Italian region Campania

2011· review· en· W1967253382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ciro Esposito, Antimo Di Spirito, Nunzia Cuomo, Giuseppe Di Nicuolo, Giovanni Flaminio, Fabiana Altamura, Daniele Ambrosino, Federich Cantalupo, Caterina Costa, Francesca Pentimalli, Giulio Tarro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular Physiology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)PandemicVirusEpidemiologyHuman mortality from H5N1Influenza A virusMedicineDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)VirologyEnvironmental healthDemographyInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus affecting humans was detected in April 2009 in Mexico, Canada, and USA. The S-OIV infection caused a mild to severe febrile respiratory disease throughout the world. Here, we briefly review the main features of influenza A viruses, which caused also other pandemics in the past, and focus in particular on the epidemiology data of the H1N1 influenza in the Italian region Campania, which resulted the most affected by the S-OIV and the one with more lethal cases. In Campania, the peak of influenza preceded of about 2 weeks the incidence peak at the national level. Moreover, the percentage of H1N1-positive patients was much higher in the main town Naples, compared to the other Campania provinces. The age group from 7 months to 17 years was the most affected by the H1N1 infection (43.45%), similarly to what reported at the national level. Here, we discuss the possible reasons of the high H1N1 incidence in Campania and the implications that these findings could have on the future prevention campaigns.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cellular PhysiologySame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207