Comparing the clinical severity of the first versus second wave of 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) in a New York City pediatric healthcare facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We previously reported the epidemiology of 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) in our pediatric healthcare facility in New York City during the first wave of illness (May-July 2009). We hypothesized that compared with the first wave, the second wave would be characterized by increased severity of illness and mortality. DESIGN: : Case series conducted from May 2009 to April 2010. SETTING: Pediatric emergency departments and inpatient facilities of New York-Presbyterian Hospital. PATIENTS: All hospitalized patients ÷ 18 yrs of age with positive laboratory tests for influenza A. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared severity of illness during the first and second wave assessed by the number of hospitalized children, including those in the pediatric intensive care unit, bacterial superinfections, and mortality rate. Compared to the first wave, fewer children were hospitalized during the second wave (n = 115 vs. 76), but a comparable portion were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (30.4% vs. 19.7%; p = .10). Pediatric Risk of Mortality III scores, length of hospitalization in the pediatric intensive care unit, incidence of respiratory failure and pneumonia, and peak oxygenation indices were similar during both waves. Bacterial superinfections were comparable in the first vs. second wave (3.5% vs. 1.3%). During the first wave, no child received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and one died, while during the second wave, one child received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and there were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: At our pediatric healthcare facility in New York City, fewer children were hospitalized with 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) during the second wave, but both waves had a similar spectrum of illness severity and low mortality rate.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".