OBJECTIVE: To determine whether transmission of blood-borne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
pathogens (BBPs) (hepatitis B virus [HBV], hepatitis C virus [HCV] and HIV) occurred as a result of endoscopy reprocessing failures iden-tified during an inspection of a nonhospital endoscopy clinic in 2011. METHODS: The present analysis was a retrospective cohort study. Registered notification letters were mailed to 6992 patients who underwent endoscopy from 2002 to 2011 at one Canadian nonhospital endoscopy clinic, informing them of the infection control lapse and offering BBP testing. Multimedia communications and a telephone line supplemented notification. A retrospective study of patients with BBPs was performed with viral genetic testing and risk factor assess-ment for eligible patients. Risk for infection among patients whose procedure was within seven days of a known positive patient was compared with those whose procedure was performed more than seven days after a known postive patient. The seven-day period was selected as the period most likely to present a risk for transmission based on the documented cleaning procedures at the clinic and the available litera-ture on virus survival. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent (6628 of 6992) of patients/estates were contacted and 5042 of 6728 (75%) living patients completed BBP test-ing. Three were newly diagnosed with HBV and 14 with HCV. Twenty-three and 48 tested positive for previously known HBV or HCV, respectively, 367 were immune to HBV due to natural infection and one was immune to HBV due to immunization. None tested positive for HIV. Sequencing did not reveal any relationships among the 46 unique case patients with viral genetic test results available. Ninety-three per-cent of patients reported alternative risk factors for BBP. An increased risk for infection among those who underwent a procedure within seven days of a known HBV or HCV case was not demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy reprocessing failures were not associated with an increased risk for BBP among individuals tested.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".