Clinical severity of pediatric respiratory illness with enterovirus D68 compared with rhinovirus or other enterovirus genotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) resulted in a reported increase in the number of children needing hospital or critical care admission because of respiratory insufficiency during 2014. It remains unclear, however, whether EV-D68 infections were more severe than rhinovirus or non-EV-D68 enterovirus infections. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive children presenting to a pediatric hospital between Aug. 1 and Oct. 31, 2014, with positive nasopharyngeal swabs for rhinovirus or enterovirus that were sent automatically for EV-D68 testing. We compared characteristics and outcomes of patients with EV-D68 with those with rhinovirus or non-EV-D68 enterovirus in a matched cohort study. RESULTS: A total of 93/297 (31.3%) of rhinovirus or enterovirus samples tested positive for EV-D68, and it was possible to compare 87 matched pairs. Children with EV-D68 infection were more likely to have difficulty breathing (odds ratio [OR] 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-6.14). There was no significant difference in admission to the critical care unit or death among children with EV-D68 infection compared with those with other rhinovirus or enterovirus infections (adjusted OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.61-3.52). Children with EV-D68 infection were more often admitted to hospital, but not significantly so (adjusted OR 2.29, 95% CI 0.96-5.46). INTERPRETATION: Enterovirus D68 seems to be a more virulent pulmonary pathogen than rhinovirus or non-EV-D68 enterovirus, but we did not find a significant difference in death or need for critical care.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".