MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801500179 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-22590-5

Estimating the probability of dengue virus introduction and secondary autochthonous cases in Europe

2018· article· en· W2801500179 on OpenAlexaff
Eduardo Massad, Marcos Amaku, Francisco Antônio Bezerra Coutinho, Cláudio J. Struchiner, Marcelo Nascimento Burattini, Kamran Khan, Jing Liu-Helmersson, Joacim Rocklöv, Moritz U. G. Kraemer, Annelies Wilder‐Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsDengue feverDengue virusAedes aegyptiTransmission (telecommunications)ViremiaGeographyDengue vaccineEnvironmental healthIncidence (geometry)DemographyVirologySocioeconomicsMedicineVirusBiologyEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the speed of air travel, diseases even with a short viremia such as dengue can be easily exported to dengue naïve areas within 24 hours. We set out to estimate the risk of dengue virus introductions via travelers into Europe and number of secondary autochthonous cases as a result of the introduction. We applied mathematical modeling to estimate the number of dengue-viremic air passengers from 16 dengue-endemic countries to 27 European countries, taking into account the incidence of dengue in the exporting countries, travel volume and the probability of being viremic at the time of travel. Our models estimate a range from zero to 167 air passengers who are dengue-viremic at the time of travel from dengue endemic countries to each of the 27 receiving countries in one year. Germany receives the highest number of imported dengue-viremic air passengers followed by France and the United Kingdom. Our findings estimate 10 autochthonous secondary asymptomatic and symptomatic dengue infections, caused by the expected 124 infected travelers who arrived in Italy in 2012. The risk of onward transmission in Europe is reassuringly low, except where Aedes aegypti is present.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207