Clinical characteristics differ in infants with bronchiolitis from RSV-A NA1, A ON1 and B strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Multiple genotypes of human respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-A and -B can co-circulate during successive epidemic seasons. A new RSV-A variant has been identified in Ontario (Canada) in 2010. Data on clinical characteristics of specific RSV-A and B strains are still limited. Aim: to compare clinical data of infants with bronchiolitis from RSV–A NA1, A ON1 and -B strains over 8 consecutive epidemic seasons December 2008 to March 2016. Methods: nasal washings from full-term infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis were tested for 14 respiratory viruses and RSV-positive samples were sequenced. Demographic and clinical data were taken from the medical files. A 0–8 clinical severity score based on respiratory rate, arterial oxygen saturation in room air, retraction and oral feeding ability were determined on admission. RSV positive cases were divided in three groups (NA1, ON1 and B strains) and SPSS (v23.0) was used for data analysis. Results: Clinical data from 106 RSV-A NA1, 73 A ON1 and 56 B infants were compared. Infants with RSV-B were older, had more frequently a positive family history of asthma and passive smoke than RSV-A strains. Infants with RSV-A NA1 strain had a higher clinical severity score (p<0.0001), in particular they had a significantly higher respiratory rate and a lower oxygen saturation, than infants with other strains. Conclusions: Clinical severity of bronchiolitis may be influenced by RSV genotypes. RSV-B seems to affect more frequently infants with risk factors. Improving RSV surveillance would allow us to deeper understand the clinicopathological impact of the different RSV genotypes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".