MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321267595 · doi:10.5864/d2022-025

Two Cases of Legionnaires’ disease following exposure to a hot tub at a private residence – Ontario, 2021

2022· article· en· W4321267595 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anna Majury, Allana Murphy, Bernie Mayer, Rajesh Singh, Md Azad, Jin Hee Kim, Rena Chung, Gustavo V. Mallo, Aimin Li, Yingli Bi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLegionella and Acanthamoeba research
Canadian institutionsHaliburton Forest & Wild Life ReservePublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegionnaires' diseaseMedicineLegionellaPneumoniaMultilocus sequence typingResidenceLegionella pneumophilaEnvironmental healthBiologyGenotypeInternal medicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On September 10, 2021, the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit in Ontario, Canada, received a case report of Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 in a patient (case 1) hospitalized for pneumonia. A second case (case 2) within the same household was also identified. Case 1 was laboratory diagnosed by urine antigen testing, whereas case 2 was diagnosed by PCR and culture from a respiratory specimen collected from case 2, both at Public Health Ontario Laboratory, Ontario, Canada. Cases were linked by household and both cases were exposed via a newly purchased but previously used hot tub. Samples from the hot tub were culture positive when tested at PHO’s Laboratory. Given a respiratory culture isolate was available, together with an environmental isolate from the hot tub, sequence based typing was undertaken. Having both a clinical and an environmental culture isolate is essential for molecular investigations. The sequence type for the clinical isolate was the same as the environmental isolate, providing additional evidence that the hot tub was the source of infection for both cases.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health ReviewSame topicLegionella and Acanthamoeba researchFrench-language works237,207