MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207807887 · doi:10.3389/fviro.2021.742722

Rapid Diagnostics for Hepatitis B and C Viruses in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

2021· article· en· W3207807887 on OpenAlexaff
Juliet Adamma Shenge, Carla Osiowy

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Virology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlobal healthHepatitis B virusHepatitis C virusHepatitis CHepatitis BVirologyLow and middle income countriesEnvironmental healthViral hepatitisDiagnostic testIntensive care medicineDeveloping countryImmunologyEconomic growthPublic healthVirusPediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global health challenge posed by hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) persists, especially in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where underdiagnosis of these viral infections remains a barrier to the elimination target of 2030. HBV and HCV infections are responsible for most liver-related mortality worldwide. Infected individuals are often unaware of their condition and as a result, continue to transmit these viruses. Although conventional diagnostic tests exist, in LMIC they are largely inaccessible due to high costs or a lack of trained personnel, resulting in poor linkage to care and increased infections. Timely and accurate diagnosis is needed to achieve elimination of hepatitis B and C by the year 2030 as set out by the World Health Organization Global Health Sector Strategy. In this review rapid diagnostic tests allowing for quick and cost-effective screening and diagnosis of HBV and HCV, are discussed, as are their features, including suitability, reliability, and applicability in LMIC, particularly those within Africa.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in VirologySame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207