MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073541036

Hospital admission rates for lower respiratory tract infections in infants in the Northwest Territories and the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut between 2000 and 2004

2007· article· en· W7073541036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationHyporeflexiaLong-term predictionDiseaseMyoglobinuria
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health care workers have long observed increased rates of hospital admissions for respiratory illness in infants from the northern regions of Canada. Particularly high rates have been reported in the Inuit population. The purpose of the present study was to compare rates of hospital admission in Inuit versus non-Inuit infants from the perspective of a single northern health region. METHODS: A retrospective review of all hospital admissions for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in infants from the Northwest Territories and the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut between 2000 and 2004 was completed and admission rates were compared by health region. RESULTS: Hospital admission rates for LRTIs in infants were above the Canadian rate for all regions. The rate of hospital admission for LRTIs in infants from the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut was dramatically high at 590 hospital admissions/1000 live births in the first 12 months of life. The majority of hospitalized infants were previously healthy, non-breastfed term infants with no underlying disease. INTERPRETATION: The rate of hospital admission in the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut is the highest reported in the current literature. The reason for such significant morbidity is difficult to explain and raises the question of an underlying predisposition to severe disease in this infant population. The question warrants further study to gain a better understanding of risk factors as well as the role of 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 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207