MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017490844 · doi:10.4021/gr2009.10.1316

Epidemiological Survey of Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Fife, Scotland

2009· article· en· W2017490844 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lukman Hakeem

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyMedicineVirologyHepatitis a virusHepatitis AEnvironmental healthHepatitisVirusPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: HCV infection is of growing public health importance in Scotland. We aim to establish: patient demographics; risk category; year/country of probable infection; referral/follow-up status; and genotypic variance of HCV in Fife. METHODS: Details of all HCV antibody positive patients, referred and assessed at specialist clinics in NHS Fife, until 1st of May 2007 were obtained retrospectively from the Fife hepatitis C database. RESULTS: In these patients, the ratio of males: female was 2:1, mean age was 36 years, representing a relatively young population, 27.4% of the patients consumed alcohol and 52.4% were smokers. Twelve patients were HIV/HCV co-infected (3.3%). Among the patients, 6.8% had serological evidence of past HBV exposure, 0.5% of patients were HCV/HBV co-infected and 18.8% were vaccinated. Eighty-six percent acquired HCV through injecting drug use and most cases were relatively newly acquired. Referral numbers were on the increase. Thirty-three of patients were under follow-up. Sixty-five percent of patients were genotype 2/3 and 35% were Genotype 1. CONCLUSIONS: Clear patterns were observed in terms of age group, gender, geographical distribution and risk category to facilitate the effective targeting of resources. HCV population in Fife are relatively young, have acquired HCV recently and are mostly of genotype 2/3. This may have a favourable influence on disease progression and cost implications of treating HCV in Fife.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207