Treatment Outcomes in a Centralized Specialty Clinic for Hepatitis C Virus Are Comparable with Those from Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes from industry-sponsored registration trials are often considered to be more favourable than those achieved in clinical practice because patients involved in the former are highly selected and supported, but it is not known if this impression is valid. OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcome of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients who received therapies for chronic HCV in a single urban centre and compare the results with those derived from contemporary, industry-sponsored trials. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of HCV-infected patients referred to the Viral Hepatitis Investigative Unit in Winnipeg, Manitoba, between 1998 and 2003. METHODS: The Viral Hepatitis Investigative Unit database was used to identify all referred patients with positive anti-HCV antibodies. Charts were reviewed for the following data: patient demographics; viral genotype; indications and contraindications to treatment; treatment type; and outcome of antiviral therapy. RESULTS: For 1800 anti-HCV positive patients identified, 1078 charts were available for review. Of these patients, the mean age was 47 years (range 11 years to 90 years) and 53% were men. Genotype 1 was the most common (65%). A total of 331 patients (31%) had received antiviral therapy. The sustained viral responses were similar to those described in industry-sponsored registration trials. Specifically, the sustained viral responses for interferon-alpha monotherapy (n=81) was 22.2%, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin (n=180) 44.4%, pegylated interferon monotherapy (n=38) 44.7% and pegylated interferon plus ribavirin (n=24) 54.2%. CONCLUSION: HCV treatment outcomes from a single urban centre were similar to those described in industry-sponsored registration trials despite the high selection and support provided to patients enrolled in the latter studies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".