Screening for HIV during pregnancy Screening for HIV during pregnancy Survey of physicians ’ practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To discover what proportion of Canadian family physicians and obstetricians discuss HIV screening with, and offer and recommend it to, the pregnant women for whom they provide prenatal care, and to describe how screening practices vary by physician and type of practice. DESIGN Survey using a mailed questionnaire. SETTING Canada. PARTICIPANTS Random sample of family physicians and obstetricians (3076 responded) providing prenatal care in 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Sex; age; years since graduation; teaching appointments; practice characteristics; specialty; province; proportion of physicians discussing HIV screening with, and offering and recommending it to, their prenatal patients; characteristics of physicians who did and did not offer screening. RESULTS Of 3076 responding physicians (61 % response rate), 2129 (69%) provided prenatal care. About 55% of these reported they offered HIV screening to all or most of their pregnant patients; 42 % reported either not offering screening or offering it only to patients they perceived at high risk. Family physicians who were female, younger, and holding teaching appointments were more likely to offer screening, as were younger
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".