MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009435494 · doi:10.3138/canlivj-2019-0028

An evaluation of knowledge and concerns in women of child-bearing potential living with chronic hepatitis C infection

2020· article· en· W3009435494 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Holly Hatashita, Curtis Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Liver Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild bearingChronic hepatitisBearing (navigation)MedicineVirologyEnvironmental healthGeographyVirusCartographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is little research focused on women living with the hepatitis C virus (HCV). We evaluated the knowledge, opinions, and concerns of women living with HCV of child-bearing potential. We specifically focused on pregnancy-related and child rearing issues. Methods: Fifteen women aged 29 to 45 seen at The Ottawa Hospital Viral Hepatitis Program between July 2017 and June 2018 consented and completed a questionnaire. Eighty percent were born in Canada. The average duration of infection was 7.2 years. Results: The majority (67%-93%) of respondents reported health concerns, fear of stigma, and shame related to their HCV diagnoses. Most (80%) feared transmitting HCV to their partner. Women are more willing to seek a partner and/or have children if they are cured of HCV. HCV-specific knowledge-as it pertains to transmission risk and direct-acting antiviral (DAA) safety during pregnancy and child rearing-was suboptimal and did not correlate with education level. All participants expressed a high degree of desire to receive DAA therapy. Conclusions: Better strategies to increase HCV-specific knowledge in women of child-bearing potential are required. Efforts to increase screening and treatment access in this population are warranted.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Liver JournalSame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207