Global Occurrence of Infant Botulism, 1976–2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. To summarize the worldwide occurrence of reported infant (intestinal toxemia) botulism cases since first recognition of the disease in 1976. PATIENTS AND METHODS. We collected information on infant botulism cases by active and passive surveillance, by provision of therapeutic Human Botulism Immune Globulin to suspected cases, and by searching the medical literature. We defined a case as laboratory-confirmed botulism that occurred in an infant ≤12 months of age that was not caused by the ingestion of botulinum toxin in food. RESULTS. Twenty-six countries representing 5 continents reported the occurrence of at least 1 case of infant botulism among their residents. The United States, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Italy, and Japan, in this order, reported the largest number of cases. A history of honey exposure was significantly more common among case subjects hospitalized outside of the United States than among those who were recently hospitalized in California. CONCLUSIONS. Most countries have not yet reported cases of infant botulism. This limited reporting of the disease to date contrasts with the known global occurrence of Clostridium botulinum spores in soils and dust and suggests that infant botulism may be underrecognized, underreported, or both. When bulbar palsies, hypotonia, and weakness are present, physicians should consider the possibility of infant botulism even if the patient has not been fed honey. Publication of additional case reports and surveillance summaries will enhance understanding of the occurrence and extent of this underrecognized disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".