Estimating the role of casual contact from the community in transmission of Bordetella pertussis to young infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The proportion of infant pertussis cases due to transmission from casual contact in the community has not been estimated since before the introduction of pertussis vaccines in the 1950s. This study aimed to estimate the proportion of pertussis transmission due to casual contact using demographic and clinical data from a study of 95 infant pertussis cases and their close contacts enrolled at 14 hospitals in France, Germany, Canada, and the U.S. between February 2003 and September 2004. A complete case analysis was conducted as well as multiple imputation (MI) to account for missing data for participants and close contacts who did not participate. By considering all possible close contacts, the MI analysis estimated 66% of source cases were close contacts, implying the minimum attributable proportion of infant cases due to transmission from casual contact with community members was 34% (95% CI = 24%, 44%). Estimates from the complete case analysis were comparable but less precise. Results were sensitive to changes in the operational definition of a source case, which broadened the range of MI point estimates of transmission from casual community contact to 20%–47%. We conclude that casual contact appears to be responsible for a substantial proportion of pertussis transmission to young infants. Medical subject headings (MeSH): multiple imputation, pertussis, transmission, casual contact, sensitivity analysis, missing data, community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".