MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802460916 · doi:10.1080/17474124.2018.1474098

Accounting for differences in risk of HCV re-infection by mental health diagnoses

2018· letter· en· W2802460916 on OpenAlexaff
Tara Beaulieu, Skye Barbic, Lianping Ti

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMental healthPsychiatryMedical diagnosisSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)ManiaAntipsychoticHarm reductionHepatitis C virusHepatitis CBipolar disorderHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicineImmunologyVirusMoodPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is widespread concern regarding the potential for hepatitis C virus (HCV) reinfection among key populations, particularly among people who inject drugs (PWID) and those living with a mental health condition. Area Covered: In this editorial we discuss the potential for specific mental health diagnoses (e.g., bipolar vs. substance use associated mania, vs. schizophrenia related disorders) to impact reinfection risk. This is an important consideration given distinct variations in risk behaviors for blood-borne virus infections (e.g., needle sharing) and patterns of health service use between diagnoses. Consideration of psychotropic agents may also have an effect on HCV reinfection given the supplemental influence of certain agents (e.g., typical antipsychotic drugs) on risk behaviours. Expert Commentary: An improved understanding of these effects may foster the beginning of a new era in the response to the optimal delivery of harm reduction programs and HCV care among PWID and those living with a mental health condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Gastroenterology & HepatologySame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207