Reply to: Need to Consider Full Societal Impact of Hepatitis B Virus Positive Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: We thank Fenkel and colleagues for their interest in our consensus guidelines regarding the use of organs from hepatitis B surface antigen–positive (HBsAg+) and/or hepatitis B core antibody–positive (HBcAb+) donors. They raise an important point regarding the potential societal impact of using these organs and suggest an additional recommendation: “Nonimmune partners and household contacts of HBsAg+ or HBcAb+ organ recipients should be educated about hepatitis B risk and ideally vaccinated” (1.Fenkel JM Singh P Shah AP Frank AM. Need to consider full societal impact of hepatitis B virus-positive donors.Am J Transplant. 2015; 15: 3013Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar). Although there should not be any significant transmission risk to other household contacts, we agree that that there is a small risk of an organ transplant recipient transmitting hepatitis B to a nonimmune sexual partner if the organ transplant recipient develops hepatitis B virus infection with detectable hepatitis B virus DNA in the blood. We agree that education should be provided to potential transplant recipients and their sexual partners when accepting organs from HBsAg+ or HBcAb+ donors. We also agree that it is appropriate to recommend immunization of sexual partners. However, we would like to emphasize that this risk should not discourage the use of these organs as the benefits are substantial as also pointed out by Fenkel and colleagues. The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".