Human Rabies Post‐Exposure Prophylaxis and Animal Rabies in Ontario, Canada, 2001–2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario, Canada, the implementation of an annual rabies control programme in wildlife that began in 1989 resulted in a marked, steady decrease in the number of animal rabies cases. The number of animal rabies cases decreased from 1870 in 1989 to 183 in 2000 (Nunan et al., 2002 Emerg Infect Dis 8, 214). In our study period, the number of animal rabies cases continued to decrease from 210 in 2001 to 28 in 2012. The marked decrease in animal rabies cases since 1989 has resulted in a decrease in the risk of human infection. A concomitant decrease in the number of rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (RPEP) administered was anticipated but failed to occur. The mean rate of RPEP, 13.9 RPEP administered per 100,000 persons, from 2001-2012 was approximately the same as the rate in the 1990 s. Two possible reasons that the rate of RPEP administration has not decreased include strict adherence to RPEP recommendations and administration of RPEP when it is not recommended. A reduction in the number of RPEP administered, consistent with the decrease in the animal rabies cases, would provide some financial savings for the government. Ideally, an increased use of the risk assessment approach in keeping with recent guidelines, rather than adhering to previous prescriptive recommendations for RPEP administration, coupled with a continuing low incidence of animal rabies cases will result in decreased, and yet appropriate, use of RPEP. Consideration should be given to identify how guidelines could be revised to more effectively target high-risk exposures and reduce the administration of RPEP for instances in which the risk of rabies virus exposure is exceedingly low.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".