FREQUENCY OF HEPATITIS B AND C POSITIVE CASES AMONG BLOOD DONORS VISITING BLOOD TRANSFUSION CENTRES OF DISTRICT ABBOTTABAD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the frequency of hepatitis B and C positive cases among Blood donors visiting Blood Banks of District Abbottabad. Materials and Methods: A total of 23596 subjects were screened for HBs Ag and anti-HCV in this descriptive study conducted from 1st January 2017 to 30 June 2018. Patients of either sex and more than 18 years of age were screened for both hepatitis B and C. Patients with evidence of hepatitis B or C in the past were excluded. The HBs Ag and Anti-HCV screening was performed through Immunochromatographic (ICT) method. All sera showing reactivity were then confirmed with Enzyme Linked Immumo-sorbent Assay (ELISA). The information of the patients was recorded on a proforma and analyzed. Results: The frequency of hepatitis B was found to be 928 (3.93%). Prevalence of hepatitis C was 294 (1.24%). Overall prevalence of hepatitis was more common in rural population than the urban population. Conclusion: Hepatitis B is more common than hepatitis C in District Abbottabad. The high frequency of hepatitis needs to launch a major public awareness program and preventive measures to prevent its further spreading.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".