MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2921017192 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.190

A191 HCV SCREENING VIA RAPID POINT OF CARE TESTING IN PATIENTS ON OPIATE SUBSTITUTION THERAPY IN PEEL REGION, CANADA

2019· article· en· W2921017192 on OpenAlexaffabout
Avika Misra, Dana Wiens, Hussein A. Kassam, Raj Gill, Sergio Borgia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsWilliam Osler Health SystemBrampton Civic HospitalVector InstituteMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatitis CPoint-of-care testingHepatitis C virusPopulationPoint of careInternal medicineEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineImmunologyVirusPathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer. HCV is among the most burdensome infectious diseases in Canada, and it is estimated that up to half of infected people are unaware of their infection. Recent data has demonstrated that HCV infected patients who are actively injecting drugs (PWID) or on opiate substitution therapy (OST) have excellent outcomes with new direct-acting antiviral therapy. However, patients on OST remain vulnerable in obtaining access to timely, and unprejudiced diagnostic testing for HCV. The standard-of-care (SOC) in Ontario for diagnosis is for patients to obtain a provincial lab requisition and submit a blood sample for HCV antibodies. Barriers to HCV care include a) invasive nature of procuring sample, b) result turnaround time, c) lack of physician awareness and referral network, and d) lost-to-follow up in this high-risk population. Novel approaches are required for education among healthcare workers for vulnerable populations, and patients themselves. Rapid, non-invasive, point-of-care (POC) HCV testing and diagnosis would better align real-world strategies with these goals. We sought to investigate trends in the SOC vs POC with respect to diagnosis and linkage to care in patients on OST at 3 clinics in Peel Region, Ontario. We hypothesized that patients with a positive HCV antibody obtained via the OraQuick® POC test will have increased linkage to care outcomes regarding their possible infection. We used a commercially available POC HCV rapid antibody test (OraQuick®) that has high specificity and sensitivity in detecting HCV antibodies. Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive either SOC or POC test. 40 (100%) of oral POC swabs conducted tested negative for HCV. Blood results were received for 7 of 40 (18%) patients in the SOC cohort, all negative for HCV. Of 80 patients enrolled in the study, 32% were female. Canadian-born patients accounted for 67% of subjects, 19% were born in India. 62% of patients were unaware of their HCV status, whereas 38% were aware of a previous negative HCV Ab result. 12/23 patients on OST enrolled from one clinic had no history of injection drug use. The proportion of patients for whom HCV Ab results were available was greater in POC than SOC (100% vs 18%). All patients for whom results have been received have tested negative and therefore no linkage opportunity was triggered. The suspected prevalence of HCV Ab in the Canadian population is approximately 1%; therefore, it was surprising that in a marginalized population with significant risk factors for HCV infection no cases were identified; perhaps due to the small sample size, or lower incidence of injection drug use. The study demonstrated that POC testing uptake worked well as a rapid screening method versus the SOC. Figure 1: Operating Protocol Gilead Sciences Canada

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)0.003
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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