MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045933279 · doi:10.5402/2011/182964

Viral Hepatitis: Retrospective Review in a Canadian Pediatric Hospital

2010· review· en· W2045933279 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paulina Cybulska, Ai Ni, Carolina Jiménez‐Rivera

Bibliographic record

VenueISRN Pediatrics · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeroconversionHepatitis AJaundiceViral hepatitisCytomegalovirusFulminant hepatitisHepatitisPediatricsHepatitis BHepatitis B virusAbdominal painEtiologyVirologyInternal medicineImmunologyViral diseaseVirusHerpesviridae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Clinical presentation of viral hepatitis ranges from mild symptoms to fulminant hepatitis. Our aim is to describe clinical presentation and outcomes of children with viral hepatitis from the Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec regions of Canada. Methods. Retrospective chart review of children diagnosed with viral hepatitis at our institution from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2007. Results. There were 261 charts reviewed, only 64 had a confirmed viral etiology: 34 (53%) hepatitis B (HBV), 16 (25%) hepatitis C (HCV), 4 (6.3%) hepatitis A (HAV), 7 (11%) cytomegalovirus (CMV), and 3 (4.7%) Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). Children with HBV presented at a mean age of 6.4 ± 4.6 years. Spontaneous seroconversion (appearance of HBVeAb and loss of HBVeAg) occurred in 21/34 (61.7%). Children with acute hepatitis (HAV, CMV, and EBV) presented with mild abdominal pain, jaundice, and fevers. Overall outcome was excellent. Conclusion. Acute and chronic hepatitis in children has a benign course; moreover, HBV spontaneous seroconversion is common in pediatric patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.023
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISRN PediatricsSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207