MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205751341 · doi:10.3138/jammi-2020-0015

Two cases of tularemia in hunters from rural Newfoundland

2022· article· en· W4205751341 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrew Sullivan, Catherine Nicholson, David Bradbury-Squires, Peter Daley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTularemiaFrancisella tularensisFrancisellaTransmission (telecommunications)MedicineZoonosisSerologyImmunologyBiologyVirologyVirulenceAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: a small gram-negative intracellular coccobacillus. Transmission occurs through direct contact with small mammals such as hares and rabbits, exposure to ticks, or ingestion or inhalation of aerosolized particles. It is a highly variable disease with six subtypes based on clinical features. Tularemia is a very rare disease in Canada, with only 0.01 cases per 100,000 people reported in 2017. METHODS: In this case report, we describe two cases of tularemia affecting hunters from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. RESULTS: The first case describes a patient with glandular tularemia diagnosed with serology; the second describes a patient with typhoidal tularemia diagnosed on blood culture. Both patients recovered after treatment with gentamicin. DISCUSSION: These cases highlight the importance of eliciting a careful social history from patients presenting with an unexplained febrile illness. Tularemia should be considered in the differential diagnosis of fever after hunting in rural areas.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease CanadaSame topicBacillus and Francisella bacterial researchFrench-language works237,207