Establishing diagnostic criteria for occult hepatitis B virus infections in community based populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Present diagnostic criteria for occult hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection requires blood or liver samples to test positive for at least two HBV DNA targets in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) negative individuals. These criteria were derived from studies involving referred or selected patient populations. The objective of the present study was to determine whether the present definition of occult HBV infection also applies within a nonselected community based population. HBV DNA testing was performed in 1,007 HBsAg negative sera by real time PCR with primer sets targeting the Enhancer I (ENHI), precore/core and surface/polymerase (S) genomic regions. Real time PCR positive cases were analyzed further by nested PCR. The results were then correlated with serologic findings among HBV DNA negative and occult positive individuals. Fifty-five sera (5.5%) were positive for at least one of the three genomic regions. Positive results with at least two primer/probe sets (thereby satisfying present diagnostic criteria for occult HBV infection) were identified in 8 (0.8%) samples (3 ENHI plus S, 2 ENHI plus precore/core and 3 having positive results with all three primer/probe sets). The prevalence of HBV serologic markers in samples that tested positive for only one primer set were similar to those of HBV DNA negative matched controls, thereby arguing against their representing occult infection. The results of this study suggest that the present diagnostic criteria for occult HBV infection are also appropriate for population based studies. However, further studies are required to confirm that impression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".