Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters17 July 2007Impact of Expanded HIV ScreeningHartmut B. Krentz, PhD and M. John Gill, MB, ChB, MScHartmut B. Krentz, PhDFrom the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada.Search for more papers by this author and M. John Gill, MB, ChB, MScFrom the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-2-200707170-00018 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:Paltiel and colleagues (1) have clearly described the cost-effectiveness of expanding rapid routine HIV screening to all adults, as promoted in the recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations (2). We modeled the predicted cost impact on the HIV care budget from transferring such recommendations into policy. Expanded screening should identify patients with undiagnosed HIV primarily in populations that are not currently targeted. Costs of HIV care are heavily influenced by the stage of HIV infection (3).We used the 13% of patients in our regional population with HIV diagnosis by existing healthy population–based screening (insurance, ...References1. Paltiel AD, Walensky RP, Schackman BR, Seage GR, Mercincavage LM, Weinstein MC, et al. Expanded HIV screening in the United States: effect on clinical outcomes, HIV transmission, and costs. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:797-806. [PMID: 17146064] LinkGoogle Scholar2. Branson BM, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, Janssen RS, Taylor AW, Lyss SB, et al. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006;55:1-17; quiz CE1-4. [PMID: 16988643] Google Scholar3. Chen RY, Accortt NA, Westfall AO, Mugavero MJ, Raper JL, Cloud GA, et al. Distribution of health care expenditures for HIV-infected patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:1003-10. [PMID: 16511767] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Krentz HB, Auld MC, Gill MJ. The changing direct costs of medical care for patients with HIV/AIDS, 1995-2001. CMAJ. 2003;169:106-10. [PMID: 12874156] MedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada.Disclosures: None disclosed. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoExpanded HIV Screening in the United States: Effect on Clinical Outcomes, HIV Transmission, and Costs A. David Paltiel , Rochelle P. Walensky , Bruce R. Schackman , George R. Seage III , Lauren M. Mercincavage , Milton C. Weinstein , and Kenneth A. Freedberg Impact of Expanded HIV Screening A. David Paltiel , Rochelle P. Walensky , and Kenneth A. Freedberg Impact of Expanded HIV Screening David Lander Metrics Cited ByThe Direct Medical Costs of Late Presentation ( <350/mm3 ) of HIV Infection over a 15-Year Period 17 July 2007Volume 147, Issue 2Page: 146KeywordsBlood cellsConflicts of interestHIVHIV infectionsHIV preventionHealth insuranceHealth screeningPatientsPopulation statisticsPregnancy ePublished: 17 July 2007 Issue Published: 17 July 2007 CopyrightCopyright © 2007 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...
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 | 0.010 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.003 |
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".