Surveillance for Lyme disease in Canada, 2009 to 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To summarize the first four years of national surveillance for Lyme disease in Canada from 2009 to 2012 and to conduct a preliminary comparison of presenting clinical manifestations in Canada and the United States. METHODS: The numbers and incidence of reported cases by province, month, year, age and sex were calculated. Logistic regression was used to examine trends over time. Acquisition locations were mapped and presenting clinical manifestations reported for jurisdictions where data was available. Variations by province, year, age and sex as well as presenting clinical symptoms were explored by logistic regression. An initial comparative analysis was made of presenting symptoms in Canada and the United States. RESULTS: The numbers of reported cases rose significantly from 144 in 2009 to 338 in 2012 (coefficient = 0.34, standard error = 0.07, P <0.05), mostly due to an increased incidence of infections acquired in Canada. More cases were classified as 'confirmed' (71.5%) than 'probable' (28.5%). Most cases occurred in locations where vector tick populations were known to be present. More men than women were affected (53.4% versus 46.6%), incidence was highest in adults aged 55 to 74 years and in children aged five to 14 years. Most cases (95%) were acquired from April to November. Of cases acquired in endemic areas, 39.7% presented with manifestations of early Lyme disease, while 60.3% had manifestations of disseminated Lyme disease. There were significant differences among age groups, sexes and provinces in the frequencies of reported clinical manifestations. The proportion of cases acquired in endemic areas presenting with early Lyme disease was lower than that reported in the US. CONCLUSION: Lyme disease incidence is increasing in Canada. Most cases are acquired where vector tick populations are spreading and this varies geographically within and among provinces. There is also variation in the frequency of age, season and presenting manifestations. The lower proportion of cases presenting with early Lyme disease in Canada compared with the US suggests lower awareness of early Lyme disease in Canada, but this requires further study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".