MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749104078 · doi:10.1017/s0950268817001625

Characterizing environmental risk factors for West Nile virus in Quebec, Canada, using clinical data in humans and serology in pet dogs

2017· article· en· W2749104078 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean-Philippe Rocheleau, Pascal Michel, L. Robbin Lindsay, Mike Drebot, Antonia Dibernardo, N. H. Ogden, A. Fortin, Julie Arsenault

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité de MontréalPublic Health Agency of CanadaCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsArbovirusContext (archaeology)SerologyEnvironmental healthRisk assessmentLogistic regressionEpidemiologyGeographyWest Nile virusBinomial regressionMedicineVirologyVirusImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification of specific environments sustaining emerging arbovirus amplification and transmission to humans is a key component of public health intervention planning. This study aimed at identifying environmental factors associated with West Nile virus (WNV) infections in southern Quebec, Canada, by modelling and jointly interpreting aggregated clinical data in humans and serological data in pet dogs. Environmental risk factors were estimated in humans by negative binomial regression based on a dataset of 191 human WNV clinical cases reported in the study area between 2011 and 2014. Risk factors for infection in dogs were evaluated by logistic and negative binomial models based on a dataset including WNV serological results from 1442 dogs sampled from the same geographical area in 2013. Forested lands were identified as low-risk environments in humans. Agricultural lands represented higher risk environments for dogs. Environments identified as impacting risk in the current study were somewhat different from those identified in other studies conducted in north-eastern USA, which reported higher risk in suburban environments. In the context of the current study, combining human and animal data allowed a more comprehensive and possibly a more accurate view of environmental WNV risk factors to be obtained than by studying aggregated human data alone.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and InfectionSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207