Influenza A (H1N1) 2009, epidemiología de la pandemia, valoración clínica y diagnóstico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antecedents: In April 2009 detected the first confirmed cases of novel influenza virus A (H1N1) of porcine origin. Here we analyze the epidemiological profile of the pandemic through the reports issued. Methods: A review of the published reports of influenza to determine the number of confirmed cases by country, the number of deaths, the distribution by age group and sex, CFR, description of clinical features, associated diseases, complications in case of death, and review of recommendations in relation to preventive measures and vaccination. Results: The WHO reported on 6 July 2009 the existence of 94,512 cumulative cases confirmed in 134 countries, the United States with cases 33,902, 10,262 Mexico to Canada with 7,983. 429 deaths were reported in 18 countries, with a total mortality of 0.45 per every 100 patients. The countries with the largest number of U.S. deaths were 170 deaths (CFR 0.50 per 100 patients), Mexico 119 (1.15 per 100), Argentina (2.41 per 100). There was a selection of reports from various countries to revise the age distribution, with a total of 39,129 people as confirmed cases, age distribution was as follows: 0 to 9 years (28.8%) of 10 to 19 years (29.5%) of 20 to 29 years (15.7%) of 30 to 39 years (9.5%), 40 to 49 years (7.2%), 50 to 59 years (4.4%) and 60 or more years (3.5%). Signs and symptoms most frequently found in reports from several countries were fever (87.8%) and cough (81.5%), odynophagia a lesser proportion (50.4%), rhinorrhea (22.2%), myalgia (16.9%), assault the general state (14.2%), diarrhea (13.3%), vomiting (11.5%), headache (11%). Conclusions: The new influenza virus A (H1N1) has produced the first pandemic of the XXI century. At this time the pandemic is moderately seRESUMEN
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".