MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2989663789 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225366

A model-based framework for chronic hepatitis C prevalence estimation

2019· article· en· W2989663789 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Abdullah Hamadeh, Zeny Feng, Murray Krahn, William Wong

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Liver Foundation
KeywordsMedicineEstimationPopulationContext (archaeology)Hepatitis CDiseaseNatural historyDisease burdenPrevalenceDemographyEnvironmental healthGeographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) continues to be a highly burdensome disease worldwide. The often-asymptomatic nature of early-stage CHC means that the disease often remains undiagnosed, leaving its prevalence highly uncertain. This generates significant uncertainty in the planning of hepatitis C eradication programs to meet WHO targets. The aim of this work is to establish a mathematical framework for the estimation of a geographic locale's CHC prevalence and the proportion of its CHC population that remains undiagnosed. A Bayesian MCMC approach is taken to infer these populations from the observed occurrence of CHC-related events using a recently published natural history model of the disease. Using the Canadian context as a specific example, this study estimates that in 2013, the CHC prevalence rate in Canada was 0.63% (95% CI: 0.53% - 0.72%), with 27.1% (95% CI: 19.3% - 36.1%) of the infected population undiagnosed.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicHepatitis C virus research→French-language works237,207→