Protective Antibodies to Rubella Virus in Children Aged 1.5 to 3 Years and in Women of Childbearing Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although immunization against rubella was introduced as routine practice in many European countries about 20 years ago, there are still epidemic outbreaks in some of them. This is a prerequisite for the continuous monitoring of population susceptibility to rubella. The aim of this study is to determine the proportion of people negative for the protective antibodies (IgG) to the rubella virus in terms of discretion of susceptibility to rubella and the risk of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). Methods : The study involved 180 subjects from two groups: children aged 1.5 - 3 years and women in childbearing age. Both groups, children and women, were divided into two subgroups: Bulgarian and Roma. The serological testing was performed with the kits Euroimmun (Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG) for quantitative determination of rubella antibodies (IgG). Results: From the Roma children17.65% (12 out of 68) was seronegative. From the Bulgarian children the seronegative were 4.76% (2 out of 42). Of all the involved children from both groups (110 in number) in 14 children (12.73%) the results were negative. Seronegative women from Roma origin were 8.33% (2 out of 24), and from the Bulgarian women - 13.04% (6 out of 46). The total number of women studied was 70, of them the seronegative were 8 (11.43%). Conclusions : 1). We have found still relatively high proportion of seronegative persons among the Roma children and the Bulgarian women of childbearing age; 2) .We consider it appropriate to introduce in medical practice periodic monitoring of susceptibility to rubella virus and at risk of epidemics to carry out timely immunization campaigns . doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/ijcp97e
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".