Minder weigering van deelname aan HIV-screening door zwangeren in Amsterdam sedert de invoering van de standaard-HIV-screening--tenzij weigering ('opting-out'-methode)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003 the Municipal Health Service in Amsterdam started to screen pregnant women for HIV according to the opting-out method. In this method the HIV test is routinely included in the prenatal screening along with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and syphilis. If the woman does not want to be tested for HIV then she must actively opt out of this test. This screening method was chosen because in the universal screening method used in 2002, women had to give their explicit consent to test for HIV and this led to a high refusal rate (13.6%), especially among women from AIDS-endemic countries. After the introduction of the opting-out method, the refusal rate fell from 3% in the first quarter of 2003 to 1.4% in the last quarter of 2003. None of the women refused to be tested for HBV or syphilis. In 2003, the HIV prevalence among pregnant women was 0.3% (35/13.621). The experiences with this screening method in Amsterdam were used to implement the national opting-out method for HIV screening in pregnant women, which was introduced on 1 January 2004
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".