A imunização contra a rubéola no primeiro trimestre de gestação pode levar à perda auditiva? Can the immunization against rubella take to the hearing loss in the first pregnancy quarter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TEMA: embora o risco da Síndrome da Rubéola Congênita após a imunização seja pequeno, é necessário assegurar a imunidade das mulheres em idade fértil, especialmente daquelas com risco mais alto de exposição, visando a prevenção. OBJETIVO: esclarecer o risco que a imunização da rubéola apresenta para a audição do recém nascido, no primeiro trimestre de gestação. CONCLUSÃO: os levantamentos realizados por este estudo permitiram concluir que ainda há um grande caminho a ser percorrido em prol da erradicação da rubéola no Brasil, bem como a diminuição dos riscos de surdez neurossensorial causados pela Síndrome da Rubéola Congênita. BACKGROUND: although congenital rubella syndrome risk after immunization is low, it is required to assert immunity of women in fertile age, especially those in higher risk of exposure aiming at prevention. PURPOSE: to elucidate the risk that rubella immunization in the first three months of gestation presents for the newborn hearing. CONCLUSION: investigations carried out by this study allow us to conclude that there is still a lot to be done in order to eradicate rubella in Brazil, as well as to reduce/decrease risks of neurosensorial deafness caused by CRS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".