Dataset Information

The first detection of influenza in the Finnish pig population: a retrospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Swine influenza is an infectious acute respiratory disease of pigs caused by influenza A virus. We investigated the time of entry of swine influenza into the Finnish pig population. We also describe the molecular detection of two types of influenza A (H1N1) viruses in porcine samples submitted in 2009 and 2010.This retrospective study was based on three categories of samples: blood samples collected for disease monitoring from pigs at major slaughterhouses from 2007 to 2009; blood samples from pigs in farms with a special health status taken in 2008 and 2009; and diagnostic blood samples from pigs in farms with clinical signs of respiratory disease in 2008 and 2009. The blood samples were tested for influenza A antibodies with an antibody ELISA. Positive samples were further analyzed for H1N1, H3N2, and H1N2 antibodies with a hemagglutination inhibition test. Diagnostic samples for virus detection were subjected to influenza A M-gene-specific real-time RT-PCR and to pandemic influenza A H1N1-specific real-time RT-PCR. Positive samples were further analyzed with RT-PCRs designed for this purpose, and the PCR products were sequenced and sequences analyzed phylogenetically.

Results

In the blood samples from pigs in special health class farms producing replacement animals and in diagnostic blood samples, the first serologically positive samples originated from the period July-August 2008. In samples collected for disease monitoring, < 0.1%, 0% and 16% were positive for antibodies against influenza A H1N1 in the HI test in 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. Swine influenza A virus of avian-like H1N1 was first detected in diagnostic samples in February 2009. In 2009 and 2010, the avian-like H1N1 virus was detected on 12 and two farms, respectively. The pandemic H1N1 virus (A(H1N1)pdm09) was detected on one pig farm in 2009 and on two farms in 2010.

Conclusions

Based on our study, swine influenza of avian-like H1N1 virus was introduced into the Finnish pig population in 2008 and A(H1N1)pdm09 virus in 2009. The source of avian-like H1N1 infection could not be determined. Cases of pandemic H1N1 in pigs coincided with the period when the A(H1N1)pdm09 virus was spread in humans in Finland.

SUBMITTER: Nokireki T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3850993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) systems are proposed as a replacement of the first reader in double reading within mammography screening. We aimed to assess cancer detection accuracy of an AI system in a Danish screening population.MethodsWe retrieved a consecutive screening cohort from the Region of Southern Denmark including all participating women between Aug 4, 2014, and August 15, 2018. Screening mammograms were processed by a commercial AI system and detection accuracy was evaluated in two scenarios, Standalone AI and AI-integrated screening replacing first reader, with first reader and double reading with arbitration (combined reading) as comparators, respectively. Two AI-score cut-off points were applied by matching at mean first reader sensitivity (AIsens) and specificity (AIspec). Reference standard was histopathology-proven breast cancer or cancer-free follow-up within 24 months. Coprimary endpoints were sensitivity and specificity, and secondary endpoints were positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), recall rate, and arbitration rate. Accuracy estimates were calculated using McNemar's test or exact binomial test.ResultsOut of 272,008 screening mammograms from 158,732 women, 257,671 (94.7%) with adequate image data were included in the final analyses. Sensitivity and specificity were 63.7% (95% CI 61.6%-65.8%) and 97.8% (97.7-97.8%) for first reader, and 73.9% (72.0-75.8%) and 97.9% (97.9-98.0%) for combined reading, respectively. Standalone AIsens showed a lower specificity (-1.3%) and PPV (-6.1%), and a higher recall rate (+ 1.3%) compared to first reader (p < 0.0001 for all), while Standalone AIspec had a lower sensitivity (-5.1%; p < 0.0001), PPV (-1.3%; p = 0.01) and NPV (-0.04%; p = 0.0002). Compared to combined reading, Integrated AIsens achieved higher sensitivity (+ 2.3%; p = 0.0004), but lower specificity (-0.6%) and PPV (-3.9%) as well as higher recall rate (+ 0.6%) and arbitration rate (+ 2.2%; p < 0.0001 for all). Integrated AIspec showed no significant difference in any outcome measures apart from a slightly higher arbitration rate (p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed higher detection of interval cancers by Standalone AI and Integrated AI at both thresholds (p < 0.0001 for all) with a varying composition of detected cancers across multiple subgroups of tumour characteristics.ConclusionsReplacing first reader in double reading with an AI could be feasible but choosing an appropriate AI threshold is crucial to maintaining cancer detection accuracy and workload.