MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609009548 · doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2017.04.003

Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2609009548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemics · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMeta-analysisCINAHLPandemicMedicinePersonal protective equipmentCochrane LibraryMEDLINETransmission (telecommunications)Psychological interventionInfluenza pandemicRandom effects modelHygieneCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePathologyDiseaseBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this review was to examine the effectiveness of personal protective measures in preventing pandemic influenza transmission in human populations. We collected primary studies from Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and grey literature. Where appropriate, random effects meta-analyses were conducted using inverse variance statistical calculations. Meta-analyses suggest that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.52–0.73; I2 = 0%), and facemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.16–1.71; I2 = 48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection. These interventions may therefore be effective at limiting transmission during future pandemics. PROSPERO Registration: 42016039896.

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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.487
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.032 · 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