MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760875214 · doi:10.2807/esw.07.22.02234-en

Travel associated probable case of SARS, Finland, with commentary from Health Canada

2003· article· en· W2760875214 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pekka Nuorti, Pirkko Kotilainen, Maija Lappalainen

Bibliographic record

VenueWeekly releases (1997–2007) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChest radiographMycoplasma pneumoniaeAtypical pneumoniaPneumoniaChlamydiaMycoplasma pneumoniaEtiologyRespiratory systemLevofloxacinInternal medicinePediatricsLungImmunologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 24 year old, previously healthy Finnish man travelled to Toronto from 24-28 April 2003 to attend a large conference. After returning to Finland, he became ill with a high fever (40 °C) and mild cough on 30 April. The patient was admitted to Turku University Central Hospital and placed in isolation as a suspect case of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). On admission, his chest radiograph was normal. On 2 May, a perihilar infiltrate was observed in his chest radiograph. A diagnosis of community acquired pneumonia was made and the case was reclassified as probable SARS. Fever lasted for five days and the patient did not require supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation. From 2-13 May, the patient received oral levofloxacin, which appeared not to influence the clinical course or laboratory parameters. There was no lymphopenia and the lactate dehydrogenase was normal. Nasopharyngeal samples for respiratory antigen detection (influenza A and B, adenovirus, parainfluenza 1,2,3 and respiratory syncytial virus) were negative. Chlamydia pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae antibody testing did not indicate acute infection. Blood cultures were negative. No aetiology for the pneumonia was identified.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeekly releases (1997–2007)Same topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207