MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099078951

bacteraemia, and Clostridium difficile infection data for England up to April-June 2012

2012· article· en· W7099078951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBig Data and Digital Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyTuberculosisRisk factorIncidence (geometry)Social riskQuarter (Canadian coin)Imprisonment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HPA London has published a review of the epidemiology of tuberculosis in London residents, including characteristics and distribution of cases, trends in anti-tuberculosis drug resistance, clustering of tuberculosis cases and treatment outcomes [1]. The report – based on an analysis of data for 2011 carried out by the Agency's London regional epidemiology unit – finds that London continues to account for the majority of tuberculosis cases in the UK – 39 % of the national total, and has an incidence rate over three times that nationally [2]. The importance of social risk factors as a precursor to, or aggravating factor in, TB infection is highlighted in the report [1]. Of the 3,511 people diagnosed with TB in the capital, one in 10 were known to have a social risk factor including: homelessness, drug or alcohol misuse, imprisonment or mental health issues, with more than a quarter of these patients reporting multiple risk factors. In some areas, this was as many as one in three patients. Cases reporting social risk factors were more likely to have infectious forms of disease, and while levels of drug resistance are high in the capital – approximately one in 10 culture confirmed cases exhibited resistance to one or more first line drugs – this was also more common among those with social risk factors Overall in London, 86 % of TB cases completed treatment within 12 months, exceeding the national and

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBig Data and Digital EconomyFrench-language works237,207