MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388341811 · doi:10.1186/s12879-023-08780-1

Tetanus in a vaccinated soil expert - a case report

2023· article· en· W4388341811 on OpenAlexaffabout
Olanrewaju Medu, Nazlee Ogunyemi, Maurice Hennink, Shawn Mawer, Theresa Styles-Mackinnon, Alex Wong, Charles Omosigho, Tania Diener

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Infectious Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and Tetanus
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph's HospitalRegina General HospitalUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan HealthSaskatchewan Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetanusMedicineVaccinationPublic healthReferralNeonatal tetanusPediatricsIntensive care medicineImmunologyFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tetanus is a life-threatening vaccine-preventable disease found more commonly in tropical climates. It accounted for up to 60 deaths annually until the introduction of the tetanus toxoid. It is now rare in Canada by immunization. This study aims to describe a case of tetanus in Saskatchewan with possible occupational exposure. CASE REPORT: We describe the case of a vaccinated soil expert with tetanus resulting from skin abrasions. This report highlights the early diagnosis, atypical presentation with possible vaccine attenuation and management approach, including acute care, intensive care unit referral, surgical management and physical rehabilitation. We also describe the public health management provided in this case. Despite the severity, the patient returned to his previous home environment with minimal motor sequelae. CONCLUSION: Occupational exposure to tetanus is an important risk, even in regions where the disease is rare. Prevention through vaccination is a key public health intervention that must be encouraged to avoid health complications that are often fatal.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Infectious DiseasesSame topicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and TetanusFrench-language works237,207