MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034925381 · doi:10.1002/sim.1670

Estimating the incidence of subclinical infections with<i>Legionella Pneumonia</i>using data augmentation: analysis of an outbreak in The Netherlands

2003· article· en· W2034925381 on OpenAlexaff
Nico Nagelkerke, Hendriek C. Boshuizen, Hester E. de Melker, Joop Schellekens, Marcel F. Peeters, Marina Conyn‐van Spaendonck

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLegionella and Acanthamoeba research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubclinical infectionOutbreakLegionellaIncidence (geometry)EpidemiologyPneumoniaCluster (spacecraft)Legionnaires' diseaseMedicinePopulationImmunologyBiologyVirologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineLegionella pneumophilaBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infections with Legionella bacteria can cause a potentially lethal form of pneumonia known as legionnaires' disease. In 1999 a major outbreak, causing 31 deaths, occurred among visitors and exhibitors of a consumer fair in The Netherlands. The epidemiology of subclinical infections is largely unknown, as there is no reliable method to diagnose such infections. To explore the incidence of subclinical infections, IgG and IgM antibody levels among exhibitors were compared to those among a representative sample of the Dutch population. As exhibitors were assumed to comprise both infected and uninfected individuals, their antibody levels were modelled as a mixture distribution. As infected individuals are expected to cluster around a point source, the spatial aspect of the spread of infections was taken into account. To estimate the distribution of antibody levels among infected individuals and to impute infection status among exhibitors, data augmentation was used. Subclinical infection appeared to be very common and its frequency declined with the distance from the putative source of the outbreak.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicLegionella and Acanthamoeba researchFrench-language works237,207