MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128126987 · doi:10.1017/s0950268813002768

Risk factors for susceptibility to varicella in newly arrived adult migrants in Canada

2013· article· en· W2128126987 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Greenaway, J.-F. Boivin, Sonya Cnossen, Carmine Rossi, Bruce Tapiéro, Kevin Schwartzman, Sherry Olson, Mark Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsVaccinationEpidemiologyChickenpoxDemographyMedicineCrowdingYoung adultEnvironmental healthImmunologyGerontologyBiologyVirusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Varicella occurs at an older age in tropical compared to cold climates. Migrants from tropical countries provide the opportunity to gain insights into observed global differences in varicella epidemiology. Severity of varicella increases with age thus, description of risk factors for varicella susceptibility will identify those who would benefit most from vaccination. A total of 1480 migrants, with a mean age of 32 years, were recruited in the pre-vaccination period (2002-2004) in Montreal, Canada. A questionnaire was administered and serum varicella antibodies were measured. Overall 6% were susceptible and ranged from 0·8% to 14·1% in subgroups. Risk factors for susceptibility were younger age, recent arrival, and originating from a tropical country. This could be modified by conditions that increased the probability of person-to-person spread of varicella through direct contact in source countries such as larger community size or household crowding. Many new young adult migrants would benefit from targeted varicella vaccination programmes.

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)0.002
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and InfectionSame topicHerpesvirus Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207