[Treatment of HIV-1 infected pregnant women].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1 January 2004, pregnant women in the Netherlands have been universally screened for HIV infection. Three HIV-infected, pregnant women aged 28, 24 and 33 years respectively, illustrate some of the problems that may be encountered in this situation, as well as the treatment options available to prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child. The first patient had a positive antibody test early in pregnancy for which she did not need treatment, the second had a positive antibody test late in pregnancy and the third was seropositive and on medication, but had the wish to become pregnant. A vaginal delivery is possible when highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) of the mother is started in good time and the plasma HIV-RNA is < 400 copies/ml at the time of delivery. In this situation the risk of transmission is reduced to around 1%. However, if HIV infection is diagnosed late in pregnancy or, despite HAART, the plasma HIV-RNA is not expected to be < 400 copies/ml, an elective caesarean section is scheduled at 38 weeks of pregnancy. In all instances the neonate is treated for 28 days with antiretrovirals, as post-exposure prophylaxis. If a woman with a known HIV infection wants to become pregnant, the choice of antiretroviral regimen and when this is started is determined by her treatment history and the potential toxic effects of the medication on the foetus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".