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 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)0.001
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 score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
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 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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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