MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389039451 · doi:10.1111/zph.13097

Responding to avian influenza A <scp>H5N1</scp> detection on a hospital property in Maine—An interdisciplinary approach

2023· article· en· W4389039451 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Krueger, Devin J. F. Myles, Carrie P. Rice, Tegwin K. Taylor, Carolyn Hurwitz, Jesse Morris, Sara Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueZoonoses and Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsInfluenza A virus subtype H5N1PreparednessTransmission (telecommunications)Public healthWildlifeEnvironmental healthPersonal protective equipmentWarning systemMedicineVeterinary medicineDiseaseVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BiologyNursingVirusEcologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The risk of infection with avian influenza A viruses currently circulating in wild and domestic birds in the Americas is considered low for the general public; however, detections in humans have been reported and warning signs of increased zoonotic potential have been identified. In December 2022, two Canada geese residing on the grounds of an urban hospital in Maine tested positive for influenza A H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b. AIMS: Given the opportunity for exposure to staff and hospital visitors through potentially infected faeces on the property, public health authorities determined mitigation efforts were needed to prevent the spread of disease. The ensuing response relied on collaboration between the public health and animal health agencies to guide the hospital through efforts in preventing possible zoonotic transmission to humans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mitigation efforts included staff communication and education, environmental cleaning and disinfection, enhanced illness surveillance among staff and patients, and exposure and source reduction. RESULTS: No human H5N1 cases were identified, and no additional detections in birds on the property occurred. Hospital staff identified barriers to preparedness resulting from a lack of understanding of avian influenza A viruses and transmission prevention methods, including avian influenza risk in resident wild bird populations and proper wildlife management methods. CONCLUSION: As this virus continues to circulate at the animal-human interface, this event and resulting response highlights the need for influenza A H5N1 risk awareness and guidance for facilities and groups not traditionally involved in avian influenza responses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoonoses and Public HealthSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207