Epidemiological characteristics of reported sporadic and outbreak cases of <i>E. coli</i> O157 in people from Alberta, Canada (2000–2002): methodological challenges of comparing clustered to unclustered data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using multivariable models, we compared whether there were significant differences between reported outbreak and sporadic cases in terms of their sex, age, and mode and site of disease transmission. We also determined the potential role of administrative, temporal, and spatial factors within these models. We compared a variety of approaches to account for clustering of cases in outbreaks including weighted logistic regression, random effects models, general estimating equations, robust variance estimates, and the random selection of one case from each outbreak. Age and mode of transmission were the only epidemiologically and statistically significant covariates in our final models using the above approaches. Weighing observations in a logistic regression model by the inverse of their outbreak size appeared to be a relatively robust and valid means for modelling these data. Some analytical techniques, designed to account for clustering, had difficulty converging or producing realistic measures of association.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".