Media Reports as a Source for Monitoring Impact of Influenza on Hospital Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Netherlands, like most European countries, has a robust influenza surveillance system in primary care. However, there is a lack of real-time nationally representative data on hospital admissions for complications of influenza. Anecdotal information about hospital capacity problems during influenza epidemics can, therefore, not be substantiated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether media reports could provide relevant information for estimating the impact of influenza on hospital capacity, in the absence of hospital surveillance data. METHODS: Dutch news articles on influenza in hospitals during the influenza season (week 40 of 2017 until week 20 of 2018) were searched in a Web-based media monitoring program (Coosto). Trends in the number of weekly articles were compared with trends in 5 different influenza surveillance systems. A content analysis was performed on a selection of news articles, and information on the hospital, department, problem, and preventive or response measures was collected. RESULTS: The trend in weekly news articles correlated significantly with the trends in all 5 surveillance systems, including severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) surveillance. However, the peak in all 5 surveillance systems preceded the peak in news articles. Content analysis showed hospitals (N=69) had major capacity problems (46/69, 67%), resulting in admission stops (9/46, 20%), postponement of nonurgent surgical procedures (29/46, 63%), or both (8/46, 17%). Only few hospitals reported the use of point-of-care testing (5/69, 7%) or a separate influenza ward (3/69, 4%) to accelerate clinical management, but most resorted to ad hoc crisis management (34/69, 49%). CONCLUSIONS: Media reports showed that the 2017/2018 influenza epidemic caused serious problems in hospitals throughout the country. However, because of the time lag in media reporting, it is not a suitable alternative for near real-time SARI surveillance. A robust SARI surveillance program is important to inform decision making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".