MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406939384 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(25)00047-9

Epidemiological and clinical features of mpox during the clade Ib outbreak in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo: a prospective cohort study

2025· article· en· W4406939384 on OpenAlexafffund
Isabel Brosius, Emmanuel Hasivirwe Vakaniaki, Guy Mukari, Papy Munganga, Jean Claude Tshomba, Elise De Vos, Eugene Bangwen, Yves Mujula, Achilleas Tsoumanis, Christophe Van Dijck, Aimé Alengo, Léandre Mutimbwa-Mambo, Franklin Mweshi Kumbana, Divin Mazambi Mambo, James Wakilongo Zangilwa, Steeven Bilembo Kitwanda, Sarah Houben, Nicole A. Hoff, Jean-Claude Makangara-Cigolo, Eddy Kinganda-Lusamaki, Martine Peeters, Anne W. Rimoin, Jason Kindrachuk, Nicola Low, Patrick DMC Katoto, Espoir Bwenge Malembaka, John Amuasi, Olivier Tshiani-Mbaya, Dally Muamba Kambaji, Richard Kojan, Cris Kacita, Daniel Mukadi‐Bamuleka, Steve Ahuka Mundeke, Koen Vercauteren, Tony Wawina-Bokalanga, Jean-Jacques Muyembe-Tamfum, Sabin S. Nundu, Laurens Liesenborghs, Placide Mbala‐Kingebeni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials PartnershipVlaamse regeringEuropean CommissionFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekInternational Development Research CentreCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSanofi
KeywordsEpidemiologyOutbreakCladeProspective cohort studyMedicineCohortCohort studyDemocracyGeographyVirologyEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceInternal medicineBiologyPhylogenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations69
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207