Legionnaires′ Disease ‐ Results of a Multicenter Canadian Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has never been a cross-Canada surveillance project to determine the rate of Legionella species as a cause of community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization and to determine whether there are any regional differences in the rates of Legionnaires' disease in Canada. Anecdotally, Legionnaires' disease is thought to be uncommon in Western Canada. METHODS: From January, 1996 through to October 31, 1997, a prospective study of the etiology of community acquired pneumonia requiring admission to 15 tertiary care hospitals in eight Canadian provinces was conducted. A urine sample from each patient was tested for Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 antigen using a commercially available ELISA assay. A culture of sputum or other respiratory specimens for Legionellaceae was carried out at the discretion of the attending physician. Two hundred thirty-four patients had acute and 6-week convalescent serum samples tested for antibodies to L pneumophila serogroups 1 through 6 using an ELISA method. RESULTS: 28 of the 850 patients (3.2%) had Legionnaires' disease; 18 of 823 (2.1%) were positive for L pneumophila serogroup 1 by urinary antigen testing. The rate of Legionnaires' disease, based on urinary antigen, at the Halifax site was higher than that at the other sites (seven of 163 patients versus 11 of 660 [P=0.04]). Of the 28 cases of Legionnaires' disease identified using all methods, 11 of 277 patients (3.9%) were enrolled from Western provinces versus 17 of 573 patients (2.9%) from Eastern provinces (P=nonsignificant). CONCLUSIONS: Legionnaires' disease is just as common in Western as in Eastern Canada. L pneumophila serogroup 1 may be more common in Halifax than at the other sites studied.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".