MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107183022 · doi:10.3201/eid1603.081689

New Endemic<i>Legionella pneumophila</i>Serogroup I Clones, Ontario, Canada

2010· article· en· W2107183022 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathalie Tijet, Patrick Tang, Mya Romilowych, Carla Duncan, Victoria Ng, David N. Fisman, Frances Jamieson, Donald E. Low, Cyril Guyard

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging infectious diseases · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLegionella and Acanthamoeba research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegionnaires' diseaseLegionella pneumophilaMolecular epidemiologyOutbreakBiologyLegionellaTypingGenetic diversitySerotypeMultilocus sequence typingPopulationVirologyMicrobiologyGenotypeGeneticsMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The water-borne pathogen Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 (Lp1) is the most commonly reported etiologic agent of legionellosis. To examine the genetic diversity, the long-term epidemiology, and the molecular evolution of Lp1 clinical isolates, we conducted sequence-based typing on a collection of clinical isolates representing 3 decades of culture-confirmed legionellosis in Ontario, Canada. Analysis showed that the population of Lp1 in Ontario is highly diverse and combines lineages identified worldwide with local strains. Identical types were identified in sporadic and outbreak-associated strains. In the past 15 years, the incidence of some lineages distributed worldwide has tended to decrease, and local endemic clones and lineages have emerged. Comparative geographic distribution analysis suggests that some lineages are specific to eastern North America. These findings have general clinical implications for the study of Lp1 molecular evolution and for the identification of Lp1 circulating strains in North America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations54
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging infectious diseasesSame topicLegionella and Acanthamoeba researchFrench-language works237,207