MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2616199860 · doi:10.22371/07.2016.016

Symptom Experience and Influenza-Like Illness in a Military Population

2016· dissertation· en· W2616199860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Monique Bouvier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespiratory illnessInfluenza-like illnessPopulationMedicineCoronavirusPresentation (obstetrics)Scale (ratio)Intensive care medicineVirusImmunologyPsychiatryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Respiratory systemInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Environmental healthCartographyGeographySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The primary objective of this study was to identify if symptom presentation expressed over the course of an influenza-like illness (ILI) can predict virus type by use of unsupervised machine learning. The secondary objective was to describe clinical characteristics of strain specific coronavirus. Finally, examine the psychometric properties of the Canadian Acute Respiratory Illness and Flu Scale (CARIFS). BACKGROUND: ILI outbreaks have been a significant source of non-battle injury among military personnel. Many different viruses cause ILI, and it is difficult to determine which virus is causing the illness. Recent studies have examined the etiology and epidemiology of ILIs. Other studies have examined influenza virus symptom severity either a dichotomous or liner-sum analysis. No studies to the researcher’s knowledge have examined ILI symptoms through an unsupervised learning analysis, and few studies have examined self-reported outpatient ILI reported symptoms over an extended time frame. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data collected over a four year period by the Acute Respiratory Infection Consortium (ARIC), from an otherwise healthy military population. The symptom data was captured on visit days and by a symptom diary patients filled out at home using a symptom severity instrument designed for this study. FINDINGS: Clustering by unsupervised machine learning was unable to predict virus type based on physical symptom presentation over the course of ILI. It did identify patient attributes, like sex and age that caused patients to experience symptoms differently. Additionally, clinical similarities and differences were noted between the four common human coronavirus strains. The strain HKU1 tended to have higher systemic symptom scores and higher gastrointestinal symptom severity score over the course of illness when compared to the other strains. Finally, the psychometric properties of CARIFS revealed many strengths and limitations for its use in research. The CARIFS should be reexamined using current knowledge of symptom management to increase the validity of the instrument. IMPLICATIONS: The results demonstrated how individuals experience physical symptoms differently making it difficult to predict the viral strain causing ILI. Future research should focus on the development of symptom instruments using the theoretical underpinnings of the symptom management theory.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→