MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2398570356

[An outbreak of measles at an emergency room].

2008· article· en· W2398570356 on OpenAlexaff
J. C. F. M. Wetsteyn, W. M. J. De Rond, Miranda C Schreuder, H. E. L. De Boer, Rob van Binnendijk, Katja C. Wolthers

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeaslesVaccinationRubellaPediatricsMMR vaccineOutbreakMeasles vaccineImmunologyVirology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A small outbreak of measles occurred after a 33-year-old female aircrew (cabin) member presented at an emergency room with fever. Three members of the hospital staff were infected: a 42-year-old man, a 33-year-old woman, and a 26-year-old woman. The first 2 patients had not been immunised, and the third had received 2 immunisations according to the Dutch National Immunisation Programme. Vaccination of the 2 sero-negative patients within 48 h after exposure with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) did not prevent the development of measles. Vaccination was deemed unnecessary in the third patient. No tertiary cases occurred. The same measles virus (genotype D5) was detected by PCR and sequencing in all 4 patients. Measles remains a risk for hospital staff members who have not acquired natural immunity. The current policy of immunising patients within 72 h after exposure to measles may not be sufficient. It also appears that immunisation through the Dutch National Immunisation Programme does not always protect against nosocomial infection. Providing MMR vaccination or boosters to hospital staff in certain departments might be beneficial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207