MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292209907 · doi:10.33140/ijced.07.01.10

Human-monkey pox disease: An educational CME article

2022· article· en· W4292209907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical & Experimental Dermatology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutbreakEuropean unionDiseaseIsolation (microbiology)GeographyDisease controlQuarantineMedicineSocioeconomicsVeterinary medicineEnvironmental healthVirologyPathologyBiologyBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The zoonotic disease human-monkey pox was first reported in 1970, twelve years after the isolation of monkey pox virus in a laboratory in Denmark in 1958. For decades the disease remained confined to West Africa and the Congo basin. However, during the early 2000s, the disease appeared in the USA and Sudan. On the 31st of May, 2002, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control reported the occurrence of 557 confirmed cases worldwide including 321 confirmed from 17 European Union/European Economic Area countries, and 236 confirmed cases occurred in ten non-endemic countries outside the EU/EEA. Most of the cases outside the UK, Canada and United States were linked to travel. However, cases with no travel history nor contact with a patient, animals were also reported. The World health organization could not provide an explanation for this multi-country outbreak because for many cases there was no travel links to an endemic region. The aim of this Continuing Medical Education (CME) paper is to provide a practical overview of human-monkey pox disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.013

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.405 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical & Experimental DermatologySame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207