MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3183281337 · doi:10.38094/jlbsr20140

A Review of Hepatitis C Virus: Prevalence, Genotype, Risk Factors in Pakistan Last Quarter of Century

2021· review· en· W3183281337 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aetsam Bin Masood, Zain Ul Abideen, Salman Anjum, Muhammad Irfan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Life and Bio Sciences Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatitis C virusPopulationHepatitis CPrevalenceQuarter (Canadian coin)DiseaseGenotypeEnvironmental healthHealth careBlood transfusionHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)DemographyVirologyImmunologyVirusInternal medicineGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatitis C virus has infected over 200 million people worldwide and is the most common blood-borne disease. Pakistan has the HCV prevalence rate of over 8%. A literature search has been performed using different keywords in different databases i.e. PubMed, Google Scholar, and NCBI. 6.2% prevalence rate was found in the general population, 4.13% in healthcare workers and a higher prevalence rate was observed in injection drug users and multi transfusion population. Use of injection was very frequent among the Pakistani population, reuse and sharing of syringes have an association with HCV infections. In Pakistan most prevalent genotype of HIV was 3a. Knowledge about HCV and its risk factors also varies with the educational background. Blood donors should be screened for HCV, awareness campaigns about different risk factors should be initiated at the government level, and strict regulation on healthcare waste should be implemented, these might help in preventing its spread to healthy individuals.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Life and Bio Sciences Research→Same topicHepatitis C virus research→French-language works237,207→