Burden of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and other respiratory viruses and the completeness of respiratory viral identification among respiratory inpatients, Canada, 2003‐2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A regression-based study design has commonly been used to estimate the influenza burden; however, these estimates are not timely and many countries lack sufficient virological data. Alternative approaches that would permit a timelier assessment of the burden, including a sentinel surveillance approach recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), have been proposed. We aimed to estimate the hospitalization burden attributable to influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and other respiratory viruses (ORV) and to assess both the completeness of viral identification among respiratory inpatients in Canada and the implications of adopting other approaches. METHODS: Respiratory inpatient records were extracted from the Canadian Discharge Abstract Database from 2003 to 2014. A regression model was used to estimate excess respiratory hospitalizations attributable to influenza, RSV, and ORV by age group and diagnostic category and compare these estimates with the number with a respiratory viral identification. RESULTS: An estimated 33 (95% CI: 29, 38), 27 (95% CI: 22, 33), and 27 (95% CI: 18, 36) hospitalizations per 100 000 population per year were attributed to influenza, RSV, and ORV, respectively. An influenza virus was identified in an estimated 78% (95% CI: 75, 81) and 17% (95% CI: 15, 21) of respiratory hospitalizations attributed to influenza for children and adults, respectively, and 75% of influenza-attributed hospitalizations had an ARI diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization rates with respiratory viral identification still underestimate the burden. Approaches based on acute respiratory case definitions will likely underestimate the burden as well, although each proposed method should be compared with regression-based estimates of influenza-attributed burden as a way of assessing their validity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".