MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995433247 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2009.181925

<i>HUGHES ET AL. RESPOND</i>

2010· article· he· W1995433247 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine A. Hughes, Dalyce Zuk, Michelle Foisy, Joan Robinson, Ameeta E. Singh, Stan Houston

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Siemieniuk et al. reported their experience with routine opt-out HIV screening in Southern Alberta, Canada, and the limitations of this approach. While we believe that routine opt-out testing has been a critical factor in reducing mother to child transmission (MTCT) of HIV in our region, we acknowledge that this approach does not eliminate the risk. Over the past 5 years (2004 to 2008 inclusive), approximately 3.5% of women have opted out of HIV prenatal testing in Alberta. Opportunities to prevent MTCT may be missed in women who decline testing. In addition, women may not seek prenatal care, as was the case for the single infant who was perinatally infected with HIV in our study. Following the completion of our study in February 2006, we have had 2 additional cases of MTCT in Northern Alberta. In the first case, a woman originally from an HIV endemic country who had been living in Europe for several years arrived in Canada near the term of her pregnancy. She was assumed to have negative prenatal serology (records were in a foreign language) and was not tested by her obstetrician. She developed Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia 7 months postpartum and she and her infant proved to be HIV positive. In the second case, an Aboriginal woman with no other risk factors requested testing 6 weeks postpartum, as she suspected her partner had recently acquired HIV; both she and her infant were found to be HIV positive. An HIV test that had been performed during the second trimester of her pregnancy was negative. The cases presented by Siemieniuk et al., in addition to our own experience, confirm that further strategies to eliminate MTCT are needed. As recommended by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, strategies to further reduce the incidence of MTCT may include a second HIV test in the third trimester, either in all women or in identified high-risk groups. In addition, rapid HIV testing during labor is recommended for women with undocumented HIV status.1 The acceptability and feasibility of rapid HIV testing during labor has been demonstrated in a multicenter trial.2 We believe that approaches to eliminating MTCT should include development of more accessible, acceptable, and flexible antenatal services, including HIV testing for disadvantaged populations, to reduce the number of women not receiving prenatal care. In noncompliant pregnant women, minimizing the risk of MTCT will continue to require a flexible, multidisciplinary, and inevitably labor-intensive individualized response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0100.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.028

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207