Hepatitis C virus (HCV) care in Canadian correctional facilities: Where are we and where do we need to be?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 25% of people in Canadian correctional facilities have been previously exposed to hepatitis C virus (HCV). Despite being a high-prevalence setting, most Canadian prisons have thus far failed to engage the majority of those with chronic HCV infection in care. Several factors, including the lack of systematic screening programs, lack of on-site and trained health care personnel to improve access to care and treatment during incarceration, and the absence of standardized procedures needed to facilitate linkage to care following release likely contribute to poor engagement along the HCV care cascade for people in prison. HCV screening and engagement in care for people in prison can be improved through the implementation of universal opt-out screening upon admission and consideration of multidisciplinary care models for the provision of care. As well, the dissemination of prison-based needle and syringe programs to avert new HCV infections and re-infections should be considered. To meet the World Health Organization (WHO) 2030 HCV elimination goals, engaging researchers, clinicians and other health care providers, policy makers, correctional officials, and members of community in dialogue will be an essential first step going forward.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".