What happened to enterovirus D68 infections in 2015?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enterovirus-D68 (EV-D68) was observed in association with severe respiratory disease in children in North America and around the world in the fall of 2014. OBJECTIVE: To compare fall 2014 detection rates with fall 2015 detection rates of EV-D68 in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples collected for routine clinical care from a large regional laboratory in south-central Ontario. METHOD: Consecutive NPS samples submitted from inpatients and outpatients in Hamilton, Niagara Region and Burlington to the Regional Virology Laboratory were tested with multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for rhinovirus/enterovirus (as a single target) and for other common respiratory viruses. All NPS samples positive for rhinovirus/enterovirus were reflexed to a lab-developed single target PCR for EV-D68 detection. RESULTS: In 2014, between August 1 and October 31, 566 of 1,497 (38%, 95%CI 35-40%) NPS samples were rhino/enterovirus positive, of which 177 (31%, 95%CI 27-35%) were confirmed as EV-D68. In 2015, between August 1 and October 31, 472 of 1,630 (29%, 95%CI 27-31%) NPS samples were rhino/enterovirus positive, of which none (0%, upper limit 97.5%CI 0.8%) were confirmed to be EV-D68. CONCLUSION: Based on testing results, there appears to be much less circulating EV-D68 in south central Ontario in 2015 than in 2014. Further studies would be helpful to determine if detection rates have also dramatically decreased in other regions in Canada and internationally.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".