MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552440979 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166211

The Driving Force for 2014 Dengue Outbreak in Guangdong, China

2016· article· en· W2552440979 on OpenAlexaff
Mingtao Li, Gui‐Quan Sun, Laith Yakob, Huaiping Zhu, Zhen Jin, Wenyi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersShanxi UniversityFudan UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOutbreakDengue feverEnvironmental healthTransmission (telecommunications)QuarantineChinaMainland ChinaChikungunyaGeographyVirologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dengue fever has rapidly spread in recent decades to become the most globally expansive viral vector-borne disease. In mainland China, a number of dengue outbreaks have been reported since 1978, but the worst epidemic in decades, involving 45230 cases and 76 imported cases, resulting in six deaths in Guangdong province, emerged in 2014. Reasons for this ongoing surge in dengue, both imported and autochthonous, are currently unclear and demand urgent investigation. Here, a seasonally-driven dynamic epidemiological model was used to simulate dengue transmission data recorded from the unprecedented outbreak. Sensitivity analysis demonstrate that delayed mosquito control, the continuous importations between the end of April to the early of July, the transmission of asymptomatic dengue infections, and the abnormally high precipitation from May to August might be the causal factors for the unprecedented outbreak. Our results suggested that the earlier and more frequent control measures in targeting immature and adult mosquitoes were effective in preventing larger outbreaks, and enhanced frontier health and quarantine from the end of April to the early of July for international communications and travelers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207