Hepatocyte Growth Factor and Viral Load Variations in HD Session, Comparison with Molecular Absorbent Recirculating System (MARS) Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A decrease in hepatitis C viral load in HD patients along HD sessions has been described. It has also been proposed that hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) stimulation by HD could have some protective effect in hepatitis C virus (HCV) liver disease outcome. Aims: (i) Measurement of HCV viral load variation and quantitation of HGF stimulation in CKD patients (HCV+ and HCV–) on HD, along the HD session. (ii) Study whether albumin HD (MARS) decreases HCV viral load and stimulates HGF, compared to HD sessions. Methods: We performed two MARS and two HD sessions in vitro by using an extracorporeal circuit with blood bag contaminated with HCV serum with a known HCV viral load. (We used only a single blood bag for each testing.) In vivo we performed three MARS sessions. The total number of treatments was 6 in 2 patients (3 treatments each) and one HD session in 2 HCV+ patients and 5 HCV– patients (included in HD program in our center), taking samples at the start of the following HD session, to compare the results with those obtained in vitro. We took samples at the beginning, middle, and at the end of MARS sessions in vivo and in vitro and starting (15 min) and at the end and before starting the following HD session in vivo. (The interval between 2 HD sessions in HCV+ patients was 2 days.) We determined HCV viral load using Amplicor (Roche) and HGF using ELISA (R&D System). Results: We found a decrease of viral load in vitro and in vivo both by MARS and HD. HD in vitro: ×decrease HCV viral load, 54.67%. HD in vitro × decrease viral load 30.6% × HD in vivo. We found a decrease of 30% in viral load, remaining 27.9% lower at the start of the following session. MARS in vitro: ×viral load decrease 3% (1 session in 2 experiments). MARS in vivo: ×viral load decrease of 44.5% (6 sessions in 2 patients). We did not find HCV viral load in ultrafiltrate or albumin from MARS procedure. Analyzing HGF stimulation we found the following: MARS in vitro: start, 1001; 15 min, 1537; final, 1981 HD in vitro: start, 476; 15 min, 677; final, 1236 HD in vivo: start, 2808.57; ×15 min, >8000; final, 2605.28; ×start the following session, 2299.5 MARS in vivo: HGF starting (first session, 4633; second session, 4390; third session, 4775); at 4 h (first session, 5443; second session, 4167; third session, 5178); final (first session, 4477; second session, 6167; third session, 5078). Conclusions: MARS and HD sessions decreased HCV viral load and stimulated HGF both in vitro and in vivo. It is necessary to confirm these results because it could offer protective effect for HCV chronic liver disease outcome. HD seems to be the best option for patients with HCV hepatopathy. On the other hand, patients with liver disease who need to be treated with MARS could obtain not only a good clearance of toxin binding to albumin, but also the positive effects described.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".