Pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infection and avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection: a comparative analysisThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this special issue entitled “Second International Symposium on Recent Advances in Basic, Clinical, and Social Medicine” and has undergone the Journal's usual peer review process.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2009 H1N1 and H5N1 influenza viruses are newly (re-) emerged influenza A viruses (2009 A(H1N1) and A(H5N1), respectively) that have recently posed tremendous health threats in many regions worldwide. With the 2009 outbreak of H1N1 influenza A, the world witnessed the first influenza pandemic of the 21st century. The disease has rapidly spread across the entire globe, and has resulted in hundreds of thousands of cases with confirmed infection. Although characterized by high transmissibility, the virulence and fatality of the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza virus have thus far remained relatively low. The reverse holds true for A(H5N1) influenza; at a fatality rate that exceeds 60%, it is known to cause severe damage to the human respiratory system, but is not presently capable of efficient transmission from human to human. Apart from the clear differences between the two types of influenza, there are some significant similarities that warrant attention. In particular, the more severe and fatal 2009 A(H1N1) influenza cases have shown symptoms similar to those reported in cases of A(H5N1) influenza. Histopathological findings for these cases, to the extent available, also appear to have similarities for both diseases in terms of damage and severity. Here we review important recent publications in this area, and we discuss some of the key commonalities and contrasts between the two influenza A types in terms of their biology, origins, clinical features, pathology and pathogenesis, and receptors and transmissibility.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".