MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043035699 · doi:10.1186/s12879-020-05244-8

Assessing human exposure to spotted fever and typhus group rickettsiae in Ontario, Canada (2013–2018): a retrospective, cross-sectional study

2020· article· en· W3043035699 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark P. Nelder, Curtis Russell, Steven Ross Johnson, Ye Li, Kirby Cronin, Bryna Warshawsky, Nicholas C. Brandon, Samir N. Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of TorontoResponse Biomedical (Canada)Public Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpotted feverSerologyRickettsiaMedicineTyphusMaculopapular rashPopulationScrub typhusTiterRashImmunologyRocky Mountain spotted feverSeroprevalenceVirologyAntibodyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Assessing the burden of rickettsial infections in Ontario, Canada, is challenging since rickettsial infections are not reportable to public health. In the absence of reportable disease data, we assessed the burden of rickettsial infections by examining patient serological data and clinical information. METHODS: Our retrospective, cross-sectional study included patients who had Rickettsia serological testing ordered by their physician, in Ontario, from 2013 to 2018. We tested sera from 2755 non-travel patients for antibodies against spotted fever group rickettsiae (SFGR) and typhus group rickettsiae (TGR) using an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) (positive IgG titers ≥1:64). We classified cases using a sensitive surveillance case definition: confirmed (4-fold increase in IgG titers between acute and convalescent sera with clinical evidence of infection), possible (single positive sera with clinical evidence) and previous rickettsial infection (single positive sera without clinical evidence). We classified cases seropositive for both SFGR and TGR as unspecified Rickettsia infections (URIs). RESULTS: Less than 5% of all patients had paired acute and convalescent sera tested, and of these, we found a single, laboratory-confirmed SFGR case, with a 4-fold increase in IgG titers and evidence of fever, maculopapular rash and headache. There were 45 possible (19 SFGR, 7 TGR, 19 URI) and 580 previous rickettsial infection (183 SFGR, 89 TGR, 308 URI) cases. The rate of positive tests for SFGR, TGR and URI combined (all case classifications) were 4.4 per 100,000 population. For confirmed and possible cases, the most common signs and symptoms were fever, headache, gastrointestinal complaints and maculopapular rash. The odds of having seropositive patients increased annually by 30% (odds ratio = 1.3, 95% confidence interval: 1.23-1.39). CONCLUSIONS: The rates of rickettsial infections in Ontario are difficult to determine. Based on confirmed and possible cases, rates are low, but inclusion of previous rickettsial infection cases would indicate higher rates. We highlight the need for education regarding the importance of testing acute and convalescent sera and consistent completion of the laboratory requisition in confirming rickettsial disease. We suggest further research in Ontario to investigate rickettsial agents in potential vectors and clinical studies employing PCR testing of clinical samples.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Infectious DiseasesSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207