Predicting Influenza Infections during Epidemics with Use of a Clinical Case Definition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combined pharyngeal and nasal swab specimens were collected from 100 subjects who presented with a flu-like illness (fever >37.8 degrees C plus 2 of 4 symptoms: cough, myalgia, sore throat, and headache) of <72 hours' duration at 3 different clinics in the province of Quebec, Canada, during the 1998-1999 flu season. The rate of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection was 72% according to cell culture findings and 79% according to the results of multiplex reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis (85%, influenza AH3; 15%, influenza B). All subjects for whom these results were discordant (negative culture and positive PCR) presented with a temperature > or =38.2 degrees C as well as 3 or 4 of the symptoms in the clinical case definition. Stepwise logistic regression showed that cough (odds ratio [OR], 6.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-34.1; P=.02) and fever (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.4-8.0; P=.01) were the only factors significantly associated with a positive PCR test for influenza. The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and the specificity of a case definition including fever (temperature of >38 degrees C) and cough for the diagnosis of influenza infection during this flu season were 86.8%, 39.3%, 77.6%, and 55.0%, respectively.
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 | 0.004 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".