Healthcare-Associated Influenza in Canadian Hospitals from 2006 to 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine trends, patient characteristics, and outcome of patients with healthcare-associated influenza in Canadian hospitals. DESIGN: Prospective surveillance of laboratory-confirmed influenza among hospitalized adults was conducted from 2006 to 2012. Adults with positive test results at or after admission to the hospital were assessed. Influenza was considered to be healthcare associated if symptom onset was equal to or more than 96 hours after admission to a facility or if a patient was readmitted less than 96 hours after discharge or admitted less than 96 hours after transfer from another facility. Baseline characteristics of influenza patients were collected. Patients were reassessed at 30 days to determine the outcome. SETTING: Acute care hospitals participating in the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program. RESULTS: A total of 570 (17.3%) of 3,299 influenza cases were healthcare associated; 345 (60.5%) were acquired in a long-term care facility (LTCF), and 225 (39.5%) were acquired in an acute care facility (ACF). There was year-to-year variability in the rate and proportion of cases that were healthcare associated and variability in the proportion that were acquired in a LTCF versus an ACF. Patients with LTCF-associated cases were older, had a higher proportion of chronic heart disease, and were less likely to be immunocompromised compared with patients with ACF-associated cases; there was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause and influenza-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare-associated influenza is a major component of the burden of disease from influenza in hospitals, but the proportion of cases that are healthcare associated varies markedly from year to year, as does the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are acquired in an ACF versus an LTCF.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".