Venomous Snakebites in Canada: A National Review of Patient Epidemiology and Antivenom Usage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are 3 pit viper species in Canada. Limited Canadian literature exists on the epidemiology of venomous snakebites and the treatment patterns with antivenom. This study described the epidemiology, the utilization of antivenom, and estimated expenditures due to forfeited antivenom for pit viper envenomations in Canada. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Health Canada Special Access Program records to generate descriptive statistics. Data are presented as mean±SD (range), as appropriate. RESULTS: The geographic distribution of Canadian pit viper species is presented. There were 99 envenomations reported in Canada from January 2009 to December 2015. The number of envenomations per year was 14±6 (6-21). CroFab and Antivipmyn are used in Canada to treat envenomations. The number of vials for patient treatment was 17±12 (3-66) and 16±9 (6-42) for CroFab and Antivipmyn, respectively. Antivenom stock usage for patient treatment varied across the country with provincial means reported for British Columbia (33%), Alberta (37%), Saskatchewan (27%), and Ontario (71%). The costs incurred secondary to forfeited stock where estimated as: $1,280,000 USD in British Columbia, $255,000 in Alberta, $60,000 in Saskatchewan, and $0 in Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute number of annual envenomations is small and the 3 Crotalinae species are limited to relatively narrow geographic areas in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario. The utilization of antivenom in the treatment of patients revealed that regions where the western and prairie rattlesnake reside forfeited a substantial amount of antivenom from 2009 to 2015. Organizations responsible for maintaining antivenom supplies on a provincial or regional level could use these data to guide antidote stocking and reduce costs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".