MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194756105 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofab414

Ten Years of Diphtheria Toxin Testing and Toxigenic Cutaneous Diphtheria Investigations in Alberta, Canada: A Highly Vaccinated Population

2021· article· en· W3194756105 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Natalie C. Marshall, Maulik Baxi, Angela Jacobs, Christopher Sikora, Gregory J. Tyrrell

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and Tetanus
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
FundersIndigenous Services Canada
KeywordsDiphtheriaCorynebacterium diphtheriaeMedicineDiphtheria toxinEpidemiologyPublic healthPopulationVaccinationEnvironmental healthVirologyMicrobiologyBiologyToxinPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Respiratory diphtheria is a potentially fatal toxin-mediated disease that is rare among highly vaccinated populations. Cutaneous infections with toxigenic Corynebacterium diphtheriae are most commonly linked to travel to an endemic region. Corynebacterium ulcerans has emerged as a predominant, locally acquired cause of respiratory and cutaneous diphtheria in Western Europe. Recently, public health agencies from several highly vaccinated regions expanded their guidelines to investigate toxigenic cutaneous diphtheria regardless of travel history. With relatively unknown epidemiology of C diphtheriae in North America, and increasing diphtheria toxin testing over the last decade, this change could lead to substantial increases in public health investigations with unclear benefits. Methods This study examined the diagnostic and public health benefits of toxigenic cutaneous diphtheria investigations in the highly vaccinated population of Alberta, Canada, where travel history is not required for cutaneous diphtheria investigations. All C diphtheriae isolates collected between 2010 and 2019 were reviewed for specimen source, toxigenicity, biovar, and associated clinical and public health data. Results Of these, 5% of C diphtheriae isolates were toxigenic and 82% were isolated from cutaneous sites. Three cases of toxigenic cutaneous disease were identified, none from patients with recent travel. Contact tracing identified asymptomatic C diphtheriae colonization among 0%–26% of close contacts, with identical isolate profiles among colonized contacts and primary cases. Conclusions Cutaneous diphtheria in nonendemic regions warrants public health investigation regardless of travel history and overall vaccination levels. This study underscores the importance of including C ulcerans in public health guidelines to assess the overall prevalence and epidemiology of toxigenic corynebacteria.

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)0.001
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 score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and TetanusFrench-language works237,207