MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Screening for HIV, hepatitis B and C infection in a population seeking assisted reproduction in an inner London hospital

2001· article· en· W2075869336 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Hart, Yacoub Khalaf, Robin Lawson, Helen Bickerstaff, Alison Taylor, Peter Braude

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionPopulationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)SemenHepatitis BIn vitro fertilisationHuman reproductionMedicineHepatitis B virusFertilityTransmission (telecommunications)ObstetricsHepatitisSpermHepatitis CVirologyGynecologyBiologyPregnancyVirusAndrologyEnvironmental healthGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority requires all sperm donors to be screened for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B and C and their semen quarantined for six months. No guidelines exist for screening prior to in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. We prospectively analysed the prevalence of these viruses in our patients. Screening detected one case of HIV (0.13%), four of hepatitis C (0.5%) and 14 new cases of hepatitis B (1.7%). The prevalence of hepatitis B and HIV in our antenatal population at this time was 1.4% and 0.8%, respectively. Knowledge allows measures to be taken to reduce the risk of transmission to partner, fetus, new born baby, or by cross-contamination during embryo cryostorage and enables couples to make an informed decision regarding proceeding with treatment. Detection of infection in one partner should no longer preclude fertility treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207