Non‐cirrhotic thrombocytopenic patients with hepatitis <scp>C</scp> virus: Characteristics and outcome of antiviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Thrombocytopenia is frequently observed in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and cirrhosis, although it can also be observed in patients without cirrhosis by a virus-mediated phenomenon. This study assessed the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of antiviral therapy in patients with chronic HCV infection and thrombocytopenia not associated with cirrhosis. METHODS: The study included 1268 patients with HCV infection and thrombocytopenia enrolled in the phase 3 ENABLE studies that assessed the impact of eltrombopag on achieving a sustained virologic response to pegylated interferon and ribavirin. The study population was subdivided according to baseline FibroSURE test results into patients with non-cirrhosis (FibroSURE < 0.4) and cirrhosis-related (FibroSURE ≥ 0.75) thrombocytopenia. RESULTS: Compared with patients with cirrhosis-related thrombocytopenia (n = 995; 78.5%), non-cirrhotic patients with thrombocytopenia (n = 59; 4.6%) were younger (mean age [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 43.9 [40.7-47.2] vs 52.7 [52.2-53.3] years; P < 0.0001), predominantly female (64% [51-76] vs 30% [27-33]; P < 0.0001), and less frequently had a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥ 10 (24% [14-37] vs 45% [42-49]; P = 0.0012), low albumin levels (≤ 35 g/L; 2% [0-9] vs 32% [29-35]; P < 0.0001), and prevalence of diabetes mellitus (3% [0-12] vs 21% [19-24]; P = 0.0005). The sustained virologic response rate was higher in non-cirrhotic patients with thrombocytopenia (46% [95% CI, 33-59] vs 16% [14-18]; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with thrombocytopenia associated with HCV who have lower FibroSURE test results may have better preserved liver function and higher sustained virologic response rates than patients with cirrhosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".