Infected Physicians and Invasive Procedures: Safe Practice Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently no public policy that provides guidance concerning whether and when physicians infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and/or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can safely perform invasive procedures. A committee of experts in the fields of medicine, law, and biomedical ethics and 1 community member, aided by an advisory board, was established to produce recommendations for policy reform. An extensive literature review was conducted for these 3 infectious diseases, medicine, surgery, epidemiology, law, and bioethics to gather all relevant data. Special recommendations are made regarding the management of physicians who are infected with HIV, HBV, and/or HCV. This policy proposal includes a list of exposure-prone procedures and a decision chart that indicates under what conditions infected physicians can practice beyond the need for disclosure of their serological status.
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 | 0.060 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".