Occult hepatitis <scp>B</scp> virus infection of hemodialysis patients: A cross‐sectional study in a hepatitis <scp>B</scp> virus‐endemic region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occult hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is defined as the presence of HBV DNA in the liver tissue and/or serum of subjects seronegative for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). Occult HBV infection of hemodialysis (HD) patients is informative in terms of virus transmission, reactivation after kidney transplantation, and the progression of liver disease. However, there is little detailed information about occult HBV infection in the context of virus endemicity. We tried to investigate the seroprevalence and clinical features of occult HBV infection in HD patients in HBV-endemic regions. We enrolled a total of 159 HD patients and 121 apparently healthy subjects at Dankook University Hospital and Jeju National University Hospital in Korea. HBsAg, anti-HBs, anti-HBc, and anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody levels were measured by radioimmunoassay. Serum levels of HBV DNA were measured by real-time polymerase chain reaction. The seroprevalence of occult HBV infection was 1.3% in HD patients and 2.5% in the healthy controls. This difference was not significant. The HBV load in all subjects with occult infection was <116 copies/mL, and all were positive for IgG anti-HBc, regardless of the presence of anti-HBs. None of the occult HBV-infected subjects were co-infected with HCV. One of the 2 HD patients with occult HBV infection had no history of blood transfusion. In this HBV-endemic region, the seroprevalence of occult HBV infection in HD patients with a very low viral load was not significantly different from that in apparently healthy subjects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".