Hepatitis C virus infection and hospital-related outcomes: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People living with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are disproportionately over-represented in the healthcare system due to various individual and contextual circumstances, including comorbidities and socioeconomic marginalisation. With growing trends in morbidity and mortality related to HCV infection, HCV is becoming a significant health and financial burden on the healthcare system, particularly in acute hospital settings. It is noteworthy that with the advent of direct-acting antiviral therapy the increasing number of patients who are cured of HCV could potentially result in different patterns of hospital-related outcomes over time. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of published literature to retrieve quantitative research articles pertaining to hospital outcomes among patients living with HCV. Primary outcomes include hospitalisation rates, length of stay, leaving against medical advice, readmission and in-hospital mortality. In total, five databases will be searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science). Titles, abstracts and full texts will be independently reviewed by two investigators in three separate stages. The methodological quality of included quantitative research studies will be assessed using a validated tool. Data from included articles will be extracted using a standardised form and synthesised in a narrative account. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results of this systematic review could provide a better understanding on how to optimise health systems and services to improve patient outcomes and care. The results of this study may provide future research with a foundation to guide decision-making and for designing and implementing systems-level interventions to improve treatment and care delivery for people living with HCV. Ethical approval for this study was received by the University of British Columbia/Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board. Findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations, reports and community forums PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017081082; Pre-results.
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 | 0.087 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.011 |
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.
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".