MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2789384038 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.338

A337 RESULTS OF PILOT HEPATITIS C SCREENING PROGRAM IN INFANTS BORN TO HIGH RISK MOTHERS

2018· article· en· W2789384038 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Gander, Dianne Webster, Dion Smyth, Stefanie Materniak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health ResearchHorizon Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerostatusMedicineReferralHepatitis CPopulationTransmission (telecommunications)Family medicinePediatricsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Environmental healthImmunologyViral load

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatitis C (HCV) is a global health concern with an estimated 2–3 % of the general population infected. It is estimated that the vertical transmission rate of mother-to-child is 5.8%. Due to the placental transfer of maternal antibodies, confirmation of hepatitis C infection is often delayed until the baby is 12–18 months of age, however many centres across North America screen earlier in order to ensure screening. There are limited centres in Canada with a formal infant screening program and limited data regarding the rate of HCV transmission. Many primary care physicians and pediatricians do not have the awareness of when to implement a screening initiative for these at-risk babies. Identifiable factors in addition to maternal HCV-positive serostatus include illicit drug use and peri-natal methadone maintanence therapy (MMT) which is common in our community yet we do not screen mother nor babies. 1. Does a formal targeted program improve screening and identify children with HCV?. 2. What is the mother-to-child transmission rate observed in our community?. 3. What are the barriers to screening? At risk mothers (HCV positive, on MMT, confirmed/suspected illicit drug use) are identified at the time of delivery and a referral for follow-up sent to both the research team primary care provider explaining the need and timing for screening and the details around data collection for the purposes of this study. The family doctor or research team then contacts the family to arrange screening. Patient results and/or reasons for not screening are documented and monitored. A total of 26 infants were included in the pilot program conducted between January 2015 and February 2016. Babies were screened at an average of 10.8 months (range 1.7–17.9 months). Of the mothers, 11/27 (42.3%) were HCV positive, the remaining 15 (57.7%) infants had mothers with other high risk behaviours for HCV acquisition but an unknown HCV status. Six (23.1%) of babies have been screened for HCV as of October 12, 2016. All were found to be negative. There remains a lack of data regarding the vertical transmission rate and outcome of infant HCV in Canada. There are many barriers to screening including patients lost to follow-up and screening refusal due to venipuncture. A longer prospective study is now underway to look for patient friendly alternatives to screening including point of care buccal swab tests being used in other countries. We also hope to follow patients once they are identified to be HCV positive in order to document clearance rates and/or possible treatment success. Also an infant screening program will serve to educate those on the importance of identifying HCV in pregnant mothers since treatment of the mother following delivery is safe and well tolerated. None

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)0.004
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicHepatitis C virus research→French-language works237,207→