MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104244719 · doi:10.1086/313974

Cruise Ships: High-Risk Passengers and the Global Spread of New Influenza Viruses

2000· article· en· W2104244719 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline Miller, Theresa Tam, Susan A. Maloney, Keiji Fukuda, Nancy J. Cox, J Hockin, Daniel A. Kertesz, A. Klimov, Martín S. Cetron

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersHealth CanadaCenters for Disease Control and PreventionJewish General Hospital
KeywordsCruiseMedicineOutbreakmyalgiaSore throatChillsAttack rateCrewInternal medicineVirologySurgeryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1997, passengers on North American cruises developed acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs); influenza was suspected. We reviewed 1 ship's medical records for 3 cruises: cruise 1 (31 August to 10 September 1997), cruise 2 (11-20 September 1997), and cruise 3 (20-30 September 1997). Medically attended ARI was defined as any 2 of the following symptoms: fever (temperature, > or =37.8 degrees C) or feverishness, sore throat, cough, nasal congestion, chills, myalgia, and arthralgia. During cruise 2, we collected nasopharyngeal swabs for viral culture from people with ARI and surveyed passengers for self-reported ARI (defined as above except feverishness was substituted for fever). The outbreak probably began among Australian passengers on cruise 1 (relative risk, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.89-5.77). Of 1284 passengers on cruise 2, 215 (17%) reported ARI, 994 (77%) were aged > or =65 years, and 336 (26%) had other risk factors for respiratory complications. An influenza strain not previously identified in North America was isolated. We concluded that an "off-season" influenza outbreak occurred among international travelers and crew on board this cruise ship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations134
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207