Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a history of previous varicella infection provides a reliable marker for prior infection. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE was searched from January 1996 to May 2002 using the MeSH headings "varicella," "chickenpox" and "medical history taking." Recommendations in this paper are based on evidence from well designed cross-sectional studies. MAIN MESSAGE: Serologic testing is advised, rather than presumptive vaccination, for those with a negative or uncertain history of varicella; most will be immune. For those with a positive history of varicella, the advice given depends on the population. For populations at higher risk of varicella infection (eg, health care workers, pregnant women), routine serum testing is recommended. For low-risk populations, physicians could accept a positive history of varicella as a reliable indicator of immunity. CONCLUSION: Most studies found that patients' history of varicella had a high positive predictive value and a low negative predictive value. These findings suggest that a positive history of varicella is a reliable marker of disease while a negative history does not not predict lack of immunity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".