Prevalence of diarrhoea in the community in Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies in several countries have estimated the prevalence of diarrhoea in the community. However, the use of different study designs and varying case definitions has made international comparisons difficult. METHODS: Similar cross-sectional telephone surveys were conducted in Australia, Canada, Ireland (including Northern Ireland), and the United States over 12 month periods between 2000 and 2002. Each survey asked about diarrhoea in the four weeks before the interview. For this comparative analysis, uniform definitions were used. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed for 6087 respondents in Australia, 3496 in Canada, 9903 in Ireland, and 14,647 in the United States. In the four weeks prior to interview, at least one episode of diarrhoea was reported by 7.6% of respondents in Canada, 7.6% in the United States, 6.4% in Australia, and 3.4% in Ireland. The prevalence of diarrhoea was consistently higher in females. In all countries, the prevalence of diarrhoea was highest in children <5 years and lowest in persons > or =65 years of age. When diarrhoea and vomiting was considered, the prevalence was almost identical in the four studies (range: 2.0-2.6%). Despite different health care structures, a similar proportion of respondents sought medical care (approximately one in five). Antibiotic usage for the treatment of diarrhoea was reported by 8.3% of respondents in the United States, 5.6% in Ireland, 3.8% in Canada, and 3.6% in Australia. CONCLUSIONS: Diarrhoea is a common illness among persons in the community in Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the United States. With similar methodologies and a standard case definition, age and sex patterns and health care seeking behaviour were remarkably consistent between countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".