MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392978894 · doi:10.26443/mjgh.v12i1.1199

Non-Specialist Treatment Model for Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) in Canadian Carceral Settings: A Telemedical Focus

2023· article· en· W4392978894 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julian Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Global Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Hepatitis C virusMedicineHepatitis CPrisonTelemedicineIncidence (geometry)Health careVirologyFamily medicineVirusPolitical sciencePsychologyGeographyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a pronounced health problem in carceral settings globally. For Canadian prisons, it is estimated that approximately 25% of those incarcerated have been previously exposed to HCV. Despite being a high prevalence context, Canadian corrections facilities have largely failed to provide adequate care to those with HCV due to their reliance on traditional treatment models. Specifically, this involves hospital-based specialist clinics for patients in corrections facilities nearby – a practice known to be associated with a low incidence of treatment initiation. This paper will explore the use of a contemporary model premised on empowering non-specialist care and the use of telemedicine. This model has found success within other global settings, as will be discussed using case studies from Australia and the United States, and other HCV literature. With the WHO setting an ambitious 90% HCV global reduction goal by 2030, it has become imperative that Canada prioritizes high prevalence populations, such as those in carceral settings, and in turn, looks to more efficient and targeted models of HCV care for these 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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.387 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Global HealthSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207