Occupational Exposure to Positive Blood and Body Fluids among Health Care Workers in a Chinese University Hospital: A Three Years Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Health care workers (HCWs) are exposed to blood and body fluids (BBF) due to occupational accidents. However, few studies have investigated the prevalence of occupational exposure in Chinese HCWs thus far. There is a clearly a critical need to characterize its epidemiology more fully in China so that effective prevention programs can be implemented. We conducted a retrospective study at a university hospital in China, giving an epidemiological analysis on these exposed HCWs whose pathogens of BBF from patients were positive [human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) / hepatitis B (HBV) / hepatitis C (HCV)]. From July 1st 2011 to June 30th 2014, a total of 155 occupational exposures to positive BBF were reported, with an incidence of 16.64 (/1000 person-years). Percutaneous injuries were the most common type of exposure episodes (89.03%). The most common type of exposed blood-borne pathogens was HBV (83.87%), and the majority of the respondents were nursing students, with an incidence of 34.22 (/1000 person-years). More effective preventive strategies on HCWs’ BBF occupational exposure should be implemented in China, especially for nursing students.</p>
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".