MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089713164 · doi:10.1055/s-2008-1067823

Epidemiologie des HIV bei Blutspendern in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

2008· article· de· W2089713164 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Glück, K. Koerner, G. Caspari, G Elbert, Wilhelm Gaus, W Grässmann, R. Hesse, G Holzberger, J. Sternberger, A. Vornwald, B. Kubanek

Bibliographic record

VenueDMW - Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift · 2008
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)West germanyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Incidence (geometry)Blood donorMedicineDemographyImmunologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of a total of 5.6 million blood donations by 1.6 million German Red Cross donors between July, 1985 and December, 1987 tested for HIV antibodies 210 were found to be positive in at least one Western blot. Calculated per quarter, the prevalence (for first-time donors) of 10 per 100,000 in 1985 decreased to 4 per 100,000 in 1986, while the incidence (for multiple donors) was a constant 2 per 100,000 for each quarter in 1987. This indicates that new HIV infections were rare in blood donors and there was no exponential increase. Further analysis revealed that over 90% of those with confirmed Western blot positive results were members of risk groups or their direct contacts. The age and sex distribution conformed to the known pattern for AIDS cases in the Federal Republic of Germany. The data demonstrate that there is at present no indication of a rapid spread of HIV infections transmitted heterosexually among blood donors.

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)0.002
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDMW - Deutsche Medizinische WochenschriftSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207