MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297537747 · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2022.105794

Monkeypox virus: An emerging epidemic

2022· review· en· W4297537747 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobial Pathogenesis · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMonkeypoxSmallpoxVirologyTransmission (telecommunications)OutbreakVirusVariola virusVaccinationOrthopoxvirusBiologyVaccinia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: A monkeypox outbreak is spreading in territories where the virus is not generally prevalent. The rapid and sudden emergence of monkeypox in numerous nations at the same time means that unreported transmission may have persisted. The number of reported cases is on a constant increase worldwide. At least 20 non-African countries, like Canada, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom, have reported more than 57662 as of September 9th suspected or confirmed cases. This is the largest epidemic seen outside of Africa. Scientists are struggling to determine the responsible genes for the higher virulence and transmissibility of the virus. Because the viruses are related, several countries have begun acquiring smallpox vaccinations, which are believed to be very effective against monkeypox. METHODS: Bibliographic databases and web-search engines were used to retrieve studies that assessed monkeypox basic biology, life cycle, and transmission. Data were evaluated and used to explain the therapeutics that are under use or have potential. Finally, here is a comparison between how vaccines are being made now and how they were made in the past to stop the spread of new viruses. CONCLUSIONS: Available vaccines are believed to be effective if administered within four days of viral exposure, as the virus has a long incubation period. As the virus is zoonotic, there is still a great deal of concern about the viral genetic shift and the risk of spreading to humans. This review will discuss the virus's biology and how dangerous it is. It will also look at how it spreads, what vaccines and treatments are available, and what technologies could be used to make vaccines quickly using mRNA technologies.

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.

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)0.001
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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.264 · 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