MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898346700 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy210.2148

2496. A Comparative Evaluation of the Burden of Disease Caused by Influenza A and Influenza B During the 2011–2012, 2012–2013, and 2013–2014 Influenza Seasons in Canada

2018· article· en· W2898346700 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caoimhe McParland, Michaela Nichols, Melissa K. Andrew, Todd F. Hatchette, Ardith Ambrose, Lingyun Ye, May ElSherif, Shelly McNeil

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineDiseaseInfluenza A virusDisease burdenPediatricsYoung adultInfluenzavirus BVirusImmunologyOrthomyxoviridae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When assessing burden of influenza disease, influenza B has typically been associated with infection in children and young adults, and is considered less prevalent and/or severe in older adults. We sought to assess the burden of influenza type A disease compared with influenza type B disease in Canadian adults admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed influenza. The Serious Outcomes Surveillance (SOS) Network of the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) conducted active surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza in adults (≥16 years) hospitalized across Canada during the 2011–2014 influenza seasons. Eligible patients who were admitted to hospital with any acute respiratory illness or symptom had a nasopharyngeal swab collected and tested for influenza virus using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Demographic/clinical information, as well as in-hospital outcomes were collected. Frailty Index scores were also recorded at baseline and 30-days after discharge, when possible, in patients ≥65 years. Patients with influenza A and B were compared using descriptive statistics; discrete outcomes were compared using Chi-squared (χ2) tests; continuous outcomes were compared using student’s t-tests. Overall, there were 3484 influenza A cases and 1375 influenza B cases enrolled in the SOS Network from 2011 to 2014. Mean age was significantly different between influenza A and influenza B cases (mean age of influenza A: 65.8, mean age of influenza B: 71.2, P < 0.01). A significantly larger proportion of influenza B patients were admitted from long-term care (A: 5.5%, B: 12.1%, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to length of hospitalization (influenza A: 11.1 days, influenza B: 10.27 days, P = 0.07) or mortality (A: 9.01%, B: 9.45%, P = 0.63) between influenza A and B. Patients with influenza B were significantly more frail prior to the onset of illness (A: 0.21, B: 0.22, P < 0.01). Current attitudes consider influenza A to be the more significant virus in terms of morbidity and mortality in adults. However, influenza B is responsible for similar duration of hospitalization and similar mortality rates. In addition, influenza B predominantly affected the frail elderly and thus optimizing influenza B protection is important in this population. M. K. Andrew, GSK: Grant Investigator, Research grant. Pfizer: Grant Investigator, Research grant. Sanofi Pasteur: Grant Investigator, Research grant. T. F. Hatchette, GSK: Grant Investigator, Research grant. Pfizer: Grant Investigator, Research grant. Abbvie: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. S. A. McNeil, GSK: Grant Investigator, Research grant. Pfizer: Grant Investigator, Research grant. Merck: Collaborator and Consultant, Contract clinical trials and Speaker honorarium. Novartis: Collaborator, Contract clinical trials. Sanofi Pasteur: Collaborator, Contract clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207