Coxsackieviruses in Ontario, January 2005 to December 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2010, there was an increase in enterovirus meningitis in the province of Ontario, Canada. Concurrently, there was also an increase in coxsackievirus A9-positive specimens in Alberta, Canada. This study aimed to describe the results of an investigation into the increase in coxsackievirus (A9 serotype) in 2010 in Ontario. METHODS: For the purpose of this study, we report on specimens tested by viral culture at Public Health Ontario Laboratory as part of routine laboratory testing from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2011. RESULTS: Coxsackieviruses represented more than one third of enteroviruses detected, with A9 being the serotype most commonly identified. The most common specimen source in which A9 was isolated was cerebrospinal fluid, followed by nasopharyngeal swabs and stool. Patients in whom A9 was detected were older than individuals with any other coxsackievirus serotype. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in enterovirus meningitis in Ontario in 2010 was likely due to an increase in A9 circulation. A9 was most commonly identified among children; however A9 may cause severe illness in both children and adults. Monitoring the circulation and epidemiology of enteroviruses can inform clinicians about circulating pathogens to optimize clinical testing and antibiotic use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".