MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A review of general hepatitis C virus lookbacks in Canada

2004· review· en· W2171534227 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Samantha L. Bowker, Lawrence J. Smith, Rhonda J. Rosychuk, Jutta K. Preiksaitis

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsMedicineHepatitis C virusPopulationMEDLINEHepatitis CPediatricsVirusInternal medicineVirologyEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This article reviews the Canadian experience with general hepatitis C virus (HCV) lookback programmes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Medline, HealthSTAR and EMBASE. In addition, bibliographic searches were performed on all retrieved articles, and provinces were contacted to determine whether they had performed general HCV lookbacks. RESULTS: Of the seven Canadian general HCV lookbacks identified, two focused specifically on the paediatric population. The proportion of transfused patients presumed to be alive varied from 48.9 to 97.5%. Between 55.3 and 99.1% of letters were successfully delivered. The proportion of patients tested for HCV and subsequently found to be HCV positive varied considerably (66.2-80.4% and 0.9-5.0%, respectively). Newly diagnosed patients represented 42-58% of cases identified. CONCLUSIONS: The Canadian general HCV lookback experience successfully identified previously undiagnosed HCV-positive patients, but the resources required to notify patients are high and the yield is relatively low. The effectiveness may be greatest in the paediatric population.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.026
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207