Virological response for recurrent hepatitis C improves long-term survival in liver transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection occurs universally and is regarded as a major cause of mortality after liver transplantation (LT) for HCV-related end-stage liver disease. We conducted this large, single-center, retrospective study to ascertain the long-term impact of virological response to treatment of recurrent hepatitis C on survival of LT recipients. From August 1987 to October 2011, 285 patients have received interferon-based antiviral therapy for recurrent hepatitis C. Of these 285, 245 patients were enrolled in this study. One hundred and twenty-six patients (51.4%) achieved sustained virological response (SVR). Relapsers (undetectable HCV-RNA at end of treatment, becoming positive afterward) comprised 9.0% (22/245), and nonresponse (NR; never achieving undetectable HCV-RNA) 39.6% (97/245). The median follow-up after completion of antiviral treatment was 2081 days. Using Kaplan-Meier method, patients who achieved SVR were shown to have significantly better 5-year patient survival (95.2%) than the NR group (49.9%) (P < 0.001), and a trend toward better 5-year survival than relapsers (87.5%) (P = 0.14); relapsers had a significantly longer survival than NR group (P = 0.005). When compared with NR, SVR and relapse appeared to be significant predictors of better survival, independent of underlying characteristics. In conclusion, virological response, especially SVR, translates into markedly improved long-term patient outcomes in patients transplanted for hepatitis C.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".