A systematic review/meta-analysis of primary research investigating swine, pork or pork products as a source of zoonotic hepatitis E virus
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
The objectives of our study were to identify and categorize primary research investigating swine/pork as a source of zoonotic hepatitis E virus (HEV) using the relatively new technique of scoping study, and to investigate the potential association between human exposure to swine/pork and HEV infection quantitatively using systematic review/meta-analysis methodology. From 1890 initially identified abstracts, 327 were considered for the review. Five study design types (cross-sectional, prevalence, genotyping, case-report and experimental transmission studies) were identified. A significant association between occupational exposure to swine and human HEV IgG seropositivity was reported in 10/13 cross-sectional studies. The association reported between pork consumption and HEV IgG seropositivity was inconsistent. The quantification of viral load in swine and retail pork, viral load required for infection in primates, cohort and case-control studies in humans, and formal risk assessment are recommended before specific public-health policy actions are taken.
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 | 0.022 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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