Age- and Sex-Specific Differences in Lyme Disease Health-Related Behaviors, Ontario, Canada, 2015–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated differences in risk factors and preventive behaviors by age and sex among persons with reported Lyme disease in Ontario, Canada, during 2015-2022. Incidence rates peaked among children 5-9 and adults 50-79 years of age. Median age was higher for female than male case-patients (54 vs. 51 years). Male case-patients reported more activity in wooded and tall grass areas than did female case-patients; fewer male case-patients reported sharing living space with outdoor-exposed companion animals. As age increased, more case-patients reported activity in blacklegged tick habitats, exposure to ticks, and wearing adequate clothing, but fewer reported sharing living space with outdoor-exposed companion animals. Adoption of preventive behaviors was relatively low and did not differ by sex. Male case-patients, children 5-9 years of age and their parents or caregivers, and adults >59 years of age represent populations that would benefit from tailored public health messaging on Lyme disease prevention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".