MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171569380 · doi:10.3201/eid1605.091894

Contagious Period for Pandemic (H1N1) 2009

2010· article· en· W2171569380 on OpenAlexafffund
Gaston De Serres, Isabelle Rouleau, Marie-Eve Hamelin, Caroline Quach, Danuta M. Skowronski, Louis Flamand, Nicole Boulianne, Yan Li, Julie Carbonneau, Anne–Marie Bourgault, Michel Couillard, Hugues Charest, Guy Boivin

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging infectious diseases · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalMontreal Children's HospitalInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecBC Centre for Disease ControlPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité Laval
KeywordsPandemicVirusViral sheddingVirologyIsolation (microbiology)Transmission (telecommunications)MedicineViral cultureVirus isolationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BiologyInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)DiseaseMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimated the proportion of persons with pandemic (H1N1) 2009 who were shedding infectious virus at diagnosis and on day 8 of illness. In households with confirmed cases, nasopharyngeal swabs were collected on all members and tested by PCR and virus culture. Of 47 cases confirmed by PCR at &lt7 days of illness, virus culture was positive in 92% (11/12) of febrile and 63% (22/35) of afebrile persons. Of 43 persons with PCR-confirmed pandemic (H1N1) 2009 from whom a second specimen was collected on day 8, 74% remained PCR positive and 19% were culture positive. If the 73 symptomatic household members without PCR-confirmed illness are assumed to have pandemic (H1N1) 2009, a minimum of 8% (6/73) of case-patients shed replicating virus on day 8. Self-isolation only until fever abates appears insufficient to limit transmission. Self-isolation for a week may be more effective, although some case-patients still would shed infectious virus.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations53
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging infectious diseasesSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207