MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418693714 · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdi062

Communicable Disease and Health Protection Quarterly Review: April to June 2005

2005· article· en· W2418693714 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neil Hough

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPediatric health and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunicable diseaseEnvironmental healthPublic healthEpidemiologyMedicinePolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policy and practice ... Outbreaks and incidents ... Surveillance ... News from abroad ... Publications ... Features ... The Chief Medical Officer for England announced that everybody aged 65 years and over who have not previously been immunized against pneumococcal infection should be offered pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine.1 This is the third phase of the immunization programme originally announced in August 2003. People aged 80 years and over were offered the vaccine in 2003/2004,2 and people aged 75 years and over were offered the vaccine in 2004/2005. For individuals aged 5 years and over in at-risk groups, such as those with heart conditions, chronic lung disease and chronic liver disease, and for all those aged 65 years and over, a single dose of 23-valence pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine is recommended. The Department of Health, Social Services, and Public Safety (DHSSPS) for Northern Ireland published the findings of an independent review of the systems and processes used within Northern Ireland to achieve the cleaning and high-level disinfection of flexible endoscopes following their use in the investigation and treatment of patients.3 The review was carried out following an incident in Northern Ireland in May 2004 when a gastroscope may not have been adequately disinfected, which had led to a detailed observational audit of all endoscopes in use in hospitals throughout Northern Ireland was undertaken in June 2004. This identified concerns with 16 endoscopes including gastroscopes, duodenoscopes and colonoscopes. Concerns fell into two groups: in the first group, one narrow channel in the endoscope was not fully cleaned or disinfected despite going through the normal cleaning and disinfection process and, in the second group, all the channels had been fully cleaned, but one channel may not have been fully disinfected despite going through the normal cleaning and disinfection process. A patient notification exercise offering testing for bloodborne viruses was undertaken for patients associated with endoscopes in the first group. Patients, who had undergone a procedure with an endoscope in which one channel may not have been fully disinfected despite going through the normal cleaning and disinfection process, were contacted and reassured. The risk of acquiring infection from an endoscope was considered to be very low, given the estimated prevalence of bloodborne viruses in the Northern Ireland population to be less than 3 per 1000.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.011

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public HealthSame topicPediatric health and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207