MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Peculiarities of the Epidemic Situation on West Nile Fever in the Territory of the Russian Federation in 2018 and Forecast of its Development in 2019

2019· article· en· W2935587314 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. O. Alekseychik, E. V. Putintseva, V. P. Smelyansky, N. V. Boroday, Amina K. Alieva, E. A. Agarkova, S. N. Chesnokova, V. K. Fomina, А. А. Батурин, К. В. Жуков, L. O. Shakhov, Н. Д. Пакскина, Yu. V. Demina, E. V. Ezhlova, Д. В. Викторов, А. В. Топорков

Bibliographic record

VenueProblems of Particularly Dangerous Infections · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWest Nile virusRussian federationIncidence (geometry)GeographyDemographySocioeconomicsVirologyMedicineVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The epidemic rise in the incidence of West Nile fever (WNF) in the season of 2018 was observed in the countries of the European Union (EU) and bordering states and exceeded the values of all previously recorded epidemic rises of 2010–2012. An increase in the incidence rate was registered in the USA and Canada, however, it did not exceed the indicators of epidemic rises of 2007–2012. In the territory of the Russian Federation, the WNF epidemiological process became more intense mainly in the territory of the Southern and North Caucasian Federal Districts. In general, in Russia, the incidence rates were 2 times lower than the average annual rates, but significantly exceeded those of 2017. The epidemic process had a number of peculiarities in the seasonality, the structure of morbidity and the clinical manifestation of WNF. Genotyping of the isolated WNV RNA fragments from clinical and biological material showed that I, II and IV West Nile virus genotypes were circulating in the European part of Russia. Forecast of epidemic situation development in 2019 reveals further increase in the incidence and does not exclude the possibility of a significant localincrease of WNF incidence in certain regions of Russia.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProblems of Particularly Dangerous InfectionsSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207