Transmission of HIV in the dental clinic and elsewhere
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review focuses on the risk of transmission of HIV in dental practice in developed and developing countries; and as a result of oral sex, perinatal transmission and breast feeding. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and practical measures to control cross-infection with TB are also discussed. There are few data from resource-poor countries where prevalence of HIV and risk of infection are higher--issues that deserve priority. Available information indicates that the risk of HIV transmission in the dental office is very low. Transmission of HIV from three healthcare workers to patients has been confirmed, including a dentist who infected six patients. There are >300 reports (102 confirmed) of occupational transmission to healthcare workers, including nine dental workers (unconfirmed). Exposure to HIV has been reported by 0.5% dentists/year. The risk of HIV infection after percutaneous exposure (0.3%) can be reduced by 81% with zidovudine PEP. However, risk assessment is required to assess the need and appropriate regimen. The risk of HIV transmission associated with orogenital sex exists, but is considered extremely low: barrier protection is recommended. Conversely, the proportion of babies who acquire HIV from untreated HIV-seropositive mothers is 15-25% in developed countries and 25-45% in developing countries. The frequency of HIV transmission attributable to breastfeeding is 16%. Airborne transmission of TB can be avoided by the prompt referral of known/suspected cases of active TB for chemotherapy, deferral of elective procedures until patients are not infectious, and the use of appropriate standard/isolation precautions including adequate ventilation of treatment areas.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it