Ethnic disparities in acquiring 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza: a case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Novel risk factors were associated with the 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 virus (pH1N1). Ethnicity was among these risk factors. Ethnic disparities in hospitalization and death due to pH1N1 were noted. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there are ethnic disparities in acquiring the 2009 pandemic H1N1. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study of the risk of pH1N1 infection using data from Ontario, Canada. Cases were laboratory confirmed to have influenza using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and controls were obtained from the same population and were RT-PCR negative. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association between ethnicity and pH1N1 infection, while adjusting for demographic, clinical and ecological covariates. RESULTS: Adult cases were more likely than controls to be self-classified as East/Southeast Asian (OR = 2.59, 95% CI 1.02-6.57), South Asian (OR = 6.22, 95% CI 2.01-19.24) and Black (OR = 9.72, 95% CI 2.29-41.27). Pediatric cases were more likely to be self-identified as Black (OR = 6.43, 95% CI 1.83-22.59). However, pediatric cases without risk factors for severe influenza infection were more likely to be South Asian (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.11-7.68), Black (OR 16.02, 95% CI 2.85-89.92), and West Asian/Arab, Latin American or Multi-racial groups (OR 3.09 95% CI 1.06-9.00). CONCLUSIONS: pH1N1 cases were more likely to come from certain ethnic groups compared to test-negative controls. Insights into whether these disparities arise due to social or biological factors are needed in order to understand what approaches can be taken to reduce the burden of a future influenza pandemic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".