MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6958027101 · doi:10.60692/8846z-a3222

Notorious Novel Avian Influenza Viruses H10N8 and H7N9 in China in 2013 Co-originated from H9N2

2014· article· en· W6958027101 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfluenza A virus subtype H5N1Avian influenza virusPhylogenetic treeVirusH5N1 genetic structureInfluenza A virusAntigenic shiftSouthern chinaPhylogenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2013, two new avian influenza viruses (AIVs) H7N9 and H10N8 emerged in China caused worldwide concerns. Previous studies have studied their originations independently; this study is the first time to investigate their co-originating characteristics. Gene segments of assorted subtype influenza A viruses, as well as H10N8 and H7N9, were collected from public database. With the help of series software, small and large-scale phylogenetic trees, mean evolutionary rates, and divergence years were obtained successionally. The results demonstrated the two AIVs co-originated from H9N2, and shared a spectrum of mutations in common on many key sites related to pathogenic, tropism and epidemiological characteristics. For a long time, H9N2 viruses had been circulated in eastern and southern China; poultry was the stable and lasting maintenance reservoir. High carrying rate of AIVs H9N2 in poultry had an extremely high risk of co-infections with other influenza viruses, which increased the risk of virus reassortment. It implied that novel AIVs reassortants based on H9N2 might appear and prevail at any time in China; therefore, surveillance of H9N2 AIVs should be given a high priority.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207