A descriptive analysis of rabies post‐exposure prophylaxis data: 2013, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By 2013, the number of confirmed rabid animals in Ontario had decreased to unprecedented low numbers, yet the expected decrease in the number of courses of rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (RPEP) administered did not occur consistent with the decrease in animal rabies cases (Figure ). This prompted a review of the reasons that RPEP was administered in Ontario. This study provides a descriptive analysis of the exposure incidents resulting in RPEP administration in Ontario during 2013 using data obtained from the integrated Public Health Information System, a Web-based disease surveillance system. Findings from the study revealed that the number of RPEP courses administered could be reduced, without increased risk of rabies, through the following strategies: (i) Education and resources for public health staff and healthcare providers who assess animal exposures to improve interpretation of guidelines for RPEP administration. (ii) Refinement of guidelines for public health staff and healthcare providers to ensure that they support detailed consideration of the circumstances of the exposure in order to assist with the risk assessment. Guidelines should also support completion of a risk assessment when exposures to skunks, foxes, raccoons and other wild carnivores are provoked by the victim, as opposed to automatically providing RPEP as recommended by current guidelines. (iii) Public education strategies to prevent exposures to animals (e.g., do not touch unattended animals, bat proofing your house, proper removal of bats from the house). (iv) Defining the criteria to declare a jurisdiction rabies-free. (v) Exploring strategies to improve surveillance for rabid animals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".