Hospitalization for Influenza A Versus B
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extent to which influenza A and B infection differs remains uncertain. METHODS: Using active surveillance data from the Canadian Immunization Monitoring Program Active at 12 pediatric hospitals, we compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of children ≤16 years admitted with laboratory-confirmed influenza B or seasonal influenza A. We also examined factors associated with ICU admission in children hospitalized with influenza B. RESULTS: Over 8 nonpandemic influenza seasons (2004-2013), we identified 1510 influenza B and 2645 influenza A cases; median ages were 3.9 and 2.0 years, respectively (P < .0001). Compared with influenza A patients, influenza B patients were more likely to have a vaccine-indicated condition (odds ratio [OR] = 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14-1.47). Symptoms more often associated with influenza B were headache, abdominal pain, and myalgia (P < .0001 for all symptoms after adjustment for age and health status). The proportion of deaths attributable to influenza was significantly greater for influenza B (1.1%) than influenza A (0.4%); adjusted for age and health status, OR was 2.65 (95% CI = 1.18-5.94). A similar adjusted OR was obtained for all-cause mortality (OR = 2.95; 95% CI = 1.34-6.49). Among healthy children with influenza B, age ≥10 years (relative to <6 months) was associated with the greatest odds of ICU admission (OR = 5.79; 95% CI = 1.91-17.57). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality associated with pediatric influenza B infection was greater than that of influenza A. Among healthy children hosptialized with influenza B, those 10 years and older had a significant risk of ICU admission.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".