Sentinel surveillance of influenza in Burkina Faso: identification of circulating strains during 2010–2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although influenza surveillance has recently been improved in some sub-Saharan African countries, no information is yet available from Burkina Faso. OBJECTIVES: Our study was the first to determine the prevalence of influenza viruses circulating in Burkina Faso through a sentinel surveillance system. METHODS: We conducted sentinel surveillance with oropharyngeal (OP) swabs collected from outpatients (1 month to 83 years) from six sites in Bobo-Dioulasso and Ouagadougou, among patients meeting the WHO/CDC case definition for influenza-like illness (ILI; fever ≥38°C, and cough and/or sore throat in the absence of other diagnosis) from July 2010 to May 2012. Influenza viruses were detected by real-time RT-PCR using CDC primers, probes, and protocols. RESULTS: The first three ILI cases were enrolled each day; of 881 outpatients with ILI enrolled and sampled, 58 (6.6%) tested positive for influenza viruses (29 influenza A and 29 influenza B). Among the influenza A viruses, 55.2% (16/29) were influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 and 44.8% (13/29) were seasonal A (H3N2). No cases of seasonal A/H1N1 were detected. Patients within 0-5 years and 6-14 years were the most affected, comprising 41.4% and 22.4% laboratory-confirmed influenza cases, respectively. Influenza infections occurred during both the dry, dusty Harmattan months from November to March and the rainy season from June to October with peaks in January and August. CONCLUSIONS: This surveillance was the first confirming the circulation of influenza A (H1N1)pdm09, A/H3N2, and influenza B viruses in humans in Burkina Faso.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".