You will be shown a paragraph from a biomedical research paper, followed by a question about the paper. Please extract text from the paragraph to answer the question. Do not include any text in your repsonse other than the answer.

Paragraph: Clinical data were collected prospectively by physicians using a standard questionnaire. RESULTS: From week 35 to 44, endonasal swabs were collected in 413 patients. Overall, 68 samples (16.5%) were positive for H1N1v. In 13 of them, other respiratory pathogens were also detected. Among H1N1v negative samples, 213 (61.9%) were positive for various respiratory agents, 190 in single infections and 23 in mixed infections. The most prevalent viruses in H1N1v negative single infections were rhinovirus (62.6%), followed by parainfluenza viruses (24.2%) and adenovirus (5.3%). 70.6% of H1N1v cases were identified in patients under 40 years and none after 65 years. There was no difference between clinical symptoms observed in patients infected with H1N1v or with other pathogens. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the high frequency of non-influenza viruses involved in ILI during the pre-epidemic period of a flu alert and the lack of specific clinical signs associated with influenza infections. Rapid diagnostic screening of a large panel of respiratory pathogens may be critical to define and survey the epidemic situation and to provide critical information for patient management. Text: In order to monitor the spread of influenza and alert health handlers, several epidemiological tools have been developed. In France, a network of 1300 general practitioners, ''Réseau Sentinelles'', working throughout the country, provides real-time clinical data used to evaluate regional and national influenza spreading [1, 2] . The criteria used by this network to define clinical influenza-like illness (ILI) are the occurrence of a sudden fever above 39uC with myalgia and respiratory signs . In general no formal viral diagnosis is carried out. The Groupes Régionaux d'Observation de la Grippe (GROG) is a second French network that surveys the emergence and the spread of the influenza viruses [3, 4] . This network is based on clinical surveillance of acute respiratory infections and laboratory analysis of nasal specimens collected from adults and children by volunteer general practitioners and pediatricians. According to the sentinel network's criteria, French health authorities proclaimed that flu epidemic level was reached during the second week of September 2009 (week 37) [5, 6] . On the contrary, data provided by the GROG showed only sporadic H1N1v activity until the last week of October (week 44) [6, 7] . Thus, it became rapidly obvious that a variety of viruses were circulating in the community and that an overestimation of myxovirus infection was at stake [8, 9, 10, 11] . As a better knowledge of the epidemic status was a key feature for national healthcare organization, hospital preparedness, patient management and disease control, unambiguous viral diagnosis appeared critical. In France, data on viral aetiologies associated with ILI were at best sporadic and correlations with clinical symptoms were often lacking. Extensive molecular assays to screening for respiratory viruses were not available countrywide for routine diagnosis. Therefore the epidemiological pattern of respiratory pathogens with overlapping seasonality was poorly known. The aim of the present study was to investigate respiratory pathogens involved in ILI during the early weeks of the 2009-2010 H1N1v diffusion in France (weeks 35 through 44) and describe the associated symptoms in paediatric and adult populations. This study was a non-interventional study with no addition to usual proceedures. Biological material and clinical data were obtained only for standard viral diagnostic following physicians' prescriptions (no specific sampling, no modification of the sampling protocol, no supplementary question in the national standardized questionnaire). Data analyses were carried out using an anonymized database. According to the French Health Public Law (CSP Art L 1121-1.1), such protocol does not require approval of an ethics committee and is exempted from informed consent application. In the two academic hospitals, Saint-Louis hospital (SLS) in Paris and Tours hospital (TRS), influenza-like illness (ILI) was defined as a patient suffering from at least one general symptom (fever above 38uC, asthenia, myalgia, shivers or headache) and one respiratory symptom (cough, dyspnoea, rhinitis or pharyngitis), in agreement with the guidelines from the French Institut de Veille Sanitaire (InVS), a governmental institution responsible for surveillance and alert in all domains of public health [12] . Criteria for severe clinical presentation were temperature below 35uC or above 39uC despite antipyretic, cardiac frequency above 120/min, respiratory frequency above 30/min, respiratory distress, systolic arterial pressure below 90 mmHg or altered consciousness. Predisposing factors of critical illness were children younger than one year old, pregnant women, diabetes, chronic pre-existing disease (such as respiratory, cardiovascular, neurologic, renal, hepatic or hematologic diseases) and immunosuppression (associated with HIV infection, organ or hematopoietic stem cells transplantation, receipt of chemotherapy or corticosteroids) [13, 14] . A cluster of suspected influenza infections was defined as at least three possible cases in a week in a closed community (household, school,…) [15] . In the two institutions, the prescription of H1N1v molecular testing was recommended for patients with ILI and with either a severe clinical presentation, an underlying risk factor of complications or a condition which was not improving under antiviral treatment. Investigation of grouped suspected cases was also recommended. From week 35 (last week of August) to 44 (last week of October), 413 endonasal swabs were collected in 3 ml of Universal Transport Medium (Copan Diagnostics Inc, Murrieta, CA) from adults and children seen in emergency rooms for suspected ILI (Table 1 ) and sent to SLS and TRS laboratories for H1N1v detection. The two microbiology laboratories participated in the reference laboratories network for the detection of pandemic influenza H1N1v. Clinical data were collected at the time of medical attention and reported by clinicians on a national standardized questionnaire provided by InVS [1, 12] . This questionnaire included the presence or absence of the main general and respiratory symptoms associated with ILI (fever, asthenia, myalgia, shivers, headache, cough, rhinitis, pharyngitis, sudden onset) [12] . Total nucleic acid was extracted from 400 mL of Universal Transport Medium using the EasyMag System (Biomérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) in SLS or the EZ1 Advanced XL (Qiagen, Courtaboeuf, France) in TRS, according to the manufacturers' instructions (elution volume: 100 mL in SLS or 90 mL in TRS). Before extraction, 5 ml of an Internal Amplification Control (IAC) which contained an encephalomyocarditis virus (EMC) RNA transcript was added into the sample. Pandemic H1N1v infection was diagnosed by real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay on a 7500 Real Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) according to the protocol of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) [16] . Other respiratory infections were investigated by a multiplex molecular assay based on the Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe-Amplification (MLPA) technology (RespiFinder19H, Pathofinder, Maastricht, The Netherlands) that allows the detection and differentiation of 14 respiratory viruses, including influenza virus A (InfA), influenza virus B (InfB), rhinovirus (RHV), parainfluenza viruses 1 to 4 (PIV-1 to PIV-4), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), adenovirus (ADV), respiratory syncytial virus A (RSVA), respiratory syncytial virus B (RSVB) and human coronaviruses 229E, OC43 and NL63 (Cor-229E, Cor-OC43, Cor-NL63) [17] . The test allows also the detection of H5N1 influenza A virus and of four bacteria: Chlamydophila pneumoniae (CP), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP), Legionella pneumophila (LP) and Bordetella pertussis (BP). The amplified MLPA products were analyzed on an ABI 3100 genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Fragment sizing analysis was performed with the GeneMarker software (SoftGenetics, LLC, State College, PA). Further testing for H1N1v was carried out with Simplexa TM Influenza A H1N1 (2009) (Focus Diagnostics, Cypress, California) when the CDC real time RT-PCR assay was negative for H1N1 and the RespiFinder19H assay was positive for Influenza A. If this latter assay was negative, H3N2 typing was performed as previously described [18] . Data from our study are summarized as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Quantitative variables are presented as medians, 25th and 75th percentiles. To compare those variables according to the viral infection status, Fisher tests 

By using CDC reference assay, H1N1v was detected in 66 samples out of 413 (16.6%), more frequently in SLS (38 samples) than in TRS (28 samples) (p,10 24 ). Overall, weekly percentage of H1N1v positive endonasal swabs remained under 10% until week 41 and increase significantly after (P Trend ,0.0001) ( Figure 1 ). Rate of H1N1v detection reached 30% in SLS at week 42 and in TRS at week 44. Overall, this rate was in agreement with results provided by the GROG network, showing an earlier start of H1N1v epidemic in Paris area [7, 19] . All 413 nucleic acid extracts were analyzed using the RespiFinder19H assay ( Figure 2 ). Sixty six patients tested H1N1v positive with CDC real time RT-PCR assay were confirmed with the multiplex assay. Thirteen were also co-infected by one or two other respiratory pathogens (multiple infections) ( Figure 2 ). Three of the 347 H1N1v negative samples could not be studied with the multiplex assay because they contained RT-PCR inhibitors (no amplification of the internal control). Two hundred and fifteen (62.5%) of the remaining 344 H1N1v negative samples were found positive for at least one respiratory pathogen ( Figure 2 ). Two hundred and twelve were positive for non influenza pathogens (189 single infections and 23 mixed infections with two, three or four viruses) and three additional single infections by influenza A were identified in SLS, including two by pandemic H1N1v and one by seasonal H3N2, as determined after molecular typing (data not shown). Overall, 68 patients (16.5%) were then positive for H1N1v, one for H3N2 and 212 for non influenza pathogens. There were 245 single infections (55 with H1N1v and 190 with other respiratory pathogens) and 36 mixed infections (13 with H1N1v and 23 without H1N1v) ( Figure 2 ). Among H1N1v negative single infections, the most prevalent viruses were rhinovirus (62.6%, 119 patients), followed by parainfluenza viruses 1 to 4 (24.2%, 46 patients), adenovirus (5.3%, 10 patients), human coronavirus 229E, OC43 and NL63 (3.2%, 6 patients) and respiratory syncytial virus A and B (2.6%, 5 patients) (Figure 2 ). In addition, RespiFinder19H assay identified three patients with bacterial infection, two with Mycoplasma pneumoniae (one 25 years old female in SLS and one 39 years old female in TRS) and one with Bordetella pertussis (one 60 years old male in SLS). No single infection by influenza B, hMPV, Chlamydophila pneumoniae or Legionella pneumophila was identified ( Figure 2 To analyze if viral co-infections occurred more frequently for some viruses, we carried out a two by two comparisons, that showed a higher proportion of co-infection only for ADV (p = 0.05). Non-influenza respiratory viruses presented a different epidemic profile compared to H1N1v. Overall, in both hospitals, weekly rate of non-H1N1v respiratory viruses whether alone or involved in co-infection increased between week 37 and 39 (from 51.4% to 81.3%) and then consistently decreased ( Figure 3 ). RHV infections that represented nearly half of non-H1N1v viral infections (141 out of 213, 66.2%) were a significant contributing factor. In both hospitals, emergence of H1N1v cases was associated with a rapid decline of RHV rate of infection from 50-60% down to less than 20% with a one to two weeks gap between SLS and TRS. Data on age ( In both institutions, 85.5% (106/124) children younger than 15 years of age were infected by at least one respiratory pathogen ( Table 2 ). H1N1v infected patients were not significantly younger than H1N1v non infected patients (27 years old vs. 25 years old, p = 0.80) (Figure 4) . However, 70.6% (48/68) of H1N1v cases were identified in patients under 40 years old (22 in SLS and 26 in TRS) and no case was observed in patients older than 65 years ( Table 2) . PIV infection occurred in very young patients (median (Figure 4) . Consequently, PIV and ADV were more frequently detected in the younger population of TRS versus SLS (p,10 24 and p,10 23 respectively). In contrast, although individuals with RHV infection were slightly younger than individuals without (median age = 24 vs. 29 for patients without RHV, p = 0.05) (Figure 4) , influenza-like illness associated with RHV was more frequent in SLS than in TRS (p = 0.012). Finally, patients with viral multiple infection were significantly younger than those with single infection (median, IDR: 4, 2-18.5 vs. 25, 6-43) and rates of mixed infection At the time of medical attention, 383 (92.7%) standardized clinical questionnaires were collected out of 413 patients. Four of them could not be exploited because they were too incomplete.

Question: What are the criteria used to define an influenza-like illness in France?
a sudden fever above 39uC with myalgia and respiratory signs