MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126008209 · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.2012.11-0427

A Cluster of Dengue Cases in American Missionaries Returning from Haiti, 2010

2012· article· en· W2126008209 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tyler M. Sharp, Parvathy Pillai, Elizabeth Hunsperger, Gilberto A. Santiago, Teresa Anderson, Trina Vap, Jeremy Collinson, Bryan Buss, Thomas J. Safranek, Mark J. Sotir, Emily S. Jentes, Jorge L. Muñoz‐Jordán, D. Fermín Argüello

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDengue feverTravel medicineDengue virusQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineMalariaTransmission (telecommunications)Cluster (spacecraft)Environmental healthVirologyGeographyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dengue is an acute febrile illness caused by four mosquito-borne dengue viruses (DENV-1 to -4) that are endemic throughout the tropics. After returning from a 1-week missionary trip to Haiti in October of 2010, 5 of 28 (18%) travelers were hospitalized for dengue-like illness. All travelers were invited to submit serum specimens and complete questionnaires on pre-travel preparations, mosquito avoidance practices, and activities during travel. DENV infection was confirmed in seven (25%) travelers, including all travelers that were hospitalized. Viral sequencing revealed closest homology to a 2007 DENV-1 isolate from the Dominican Republic. Although most (88%) travelers had a pre-travel healthcare visit, only one-quarter knew that dengue is a risk in Haiti, and one-quarter regularly used insect repellent. This report confirms recent DENV transmission in Haiti. Travelers to DENV-endemic areas should receive dengue education during pre-travel health consultations, follow mosquito avoidance recommendations, and seek medical care for febrile illness during or after travel.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Tropical Medicine and HygieneSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207