Reply
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We thank Drs. Dore and Micallef for their comments on our manuscript discussing the lower risk of HCV reinfection among previously infected injection drug users (IDUs).1 We acknowledge that there are a number of limitations associated with our retrospective study design. They also suggest that the population at risk of reinfection is older and that they may have reduced risk behavior for HCV acquisition, perhaps as a result of their previous diagnosis. Although older, they were using illicit drugs more often than subjects previously uninfected with HCV, suggesting that the risk of HCV acquisition remained high. We acknowledge that with our retrospective design, we were not able to delineate the specific nature of risks associated with drug use (including injection equipment sharing) that would more accurately define HCV transmission risks. However, the extent of the protection we observed makes us confident that there was a protective effect, although measuring the magnitude of this effect would require more reliable risk behavior data and more systematic HCV RNA testing. This relates to their concern regarding the HCV testing frequency. It is indeed possible that we missed some cases of transient reinfection, because our median interval between HCV RNA tests was 15.6 months as compared to just 5 months in the study of Micallef et al.2 Irrespective of these limitations, as mentioned by Dore and Micallef, the absence of chronic reinfection over a long duration of follow-up (5.2 years) in this large study indicates that some IDUs may be protected from HCV reinfection either through reduced risk behaviors for acquisition, host factors responsible for the resolution of primary viremia, or a partial protective immunity leading to enhanced clearance after reinfection. In chimpanzees reinfected with HCV, there is rapid control of viral replication, short-lived viremia, and universal spontaneous resolution of secondary infection.3 Additionally, in humans and chimpanzees, reinfection generally leads to an attenuated course of infection, with the level and duration of viremia markedly reduced.4-7 This being said, our data are quite reassuring in that chronic reinfection seems much less frequent in this population. We are quite intrigued that Dore and Micallef report no protective effect of prior HCV infection in a younger population with more frequent injection drug use.2 It should be pointed out, however, that only 18 individuals at risk of reinfection were evaluated and that the risk of HCV infection in the previously uninfected group was twice that reported by Mehta8 and ourselves,1 suggesting that the protective effect of prior infection may be lower in higher risk subjects. Taken together, these data suggest that the magnitude of protection against reinfection (as well as its specific mechanism) may differ between populations. Future prospective studies are needed to evaluate the natural history of HCV reinfection in IDUs and should include a detailed assessment of risk behaviors and more frequent and systematic HCV RNA testing. This type of information is necessary to better understand the immunopathogenesis and natural history of HCV in IDUs, thereby helping to define public health HCV control measures and treatment recommendations. Jason Grebely*, Brian Conway*, Jesse D. Raffa , Calvin Lai?, Mel Krajden?, Mark W. Tyndall ?, * Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, ? British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada, ? British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,057 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,019 | 0,028 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,040 | 0,031 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».