MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302737370 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2016.303090

Benzodiazepine Use and Hepatitis C Seroconversion in a Cohort of Persons Who Inject Drugs

2016· article· en· W2302737370 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paxton Bach, Geoffrey Walton, Kanna Hayashi, M‐J Milloy, Huiru Dong, Thomas Kerr, Julio Montaner, Evan Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineSeroconversionProspective cohort studyConfidence intervalCohortPopulationHepatitis CInjection drug useCohort studyInternal medicineDemographyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirologyEnvironmental healthDrug injection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between benzodiazepine (BZD) use and HCV seroconversion in 2 linked prospective cohorts of persons who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: We examined prospective cohorts of 440 PWID (baseline BZD users: n = 102; 23.2%) from the AIDS Care Cohort to Evaluate Access to Survival Services (ACCESS) and the Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study (VIDUS) cohorts, followed-up from 1996 to 2013 in Vancouver, Canada. RESULTS: At baseline, the prevalence of HCV was higher among those who used BZD (80.5% vs 61.5%; P < .001). After adjustment, BZD use remained independently associated with increased rates of HCV seroconversion (adjusted rate ratio = 1.67; 95% confidence interval = 1.05, 2.66). CONCLUSIONS: BZD use is independently associated with HCV seroconversion in a population of PWID.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207