Rubella Immunity among Pregnant Women in a Canadian Provincial Screening Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited recent data on rubella immunity in women of childbearing age in Canada. In the present paper, the proportion of rubella seroreactivity and redundant testing (testing of women previously seropositive when tested by the same physician) in the Alberta prenatal rubella screening program were studied. METHODS: In the present retrospective observational study, data on all specimens submitted for prenatal screening in Alberta between August 2002 and December 2005 were extracted from the Provincial Laboratory for Public Health database. The proportion of rubella screening and immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroreactivity were determined. Demographic variables were compared between rubella seroreactors and nonseroreactors. The proportion of redundant testing was determined. RESULTS: Of 159,046 prenatal specimens, 88.3% (n=140,473) were screened for rubella immunity. In total, 8.8% of specimens tested negative for rubella IgG. Younger women (23.2% of women younger than 20 years of age versus 4.7% of women between 35 and 39 years of age; P<0.001) and women from northern Alberta (11.9% versus 8.1% [overall]; P<0.001) were significantly more likely to have seronegative specimens. Of the 20,044 women who had multiple rubella immunity screenings, 88.1% (n=17,651) had multiple positive test results. In total, 20.7% of the 42,274 specimens submitted from women with multiple screenings were deemed redundant. DISCUSSION: Younger women were most likely to be seronegative for rubella. The public health significance of women entering their childbearing years with low or undetectable rubella IgG levels remains to be determined. A large number of women with documented rubella immunity were unnecessarily retested.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".