MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1931172160

The frequency and significance of isolated hepatitis B core antibody and the suggested management of patients.

2001· article· en· W1931172160 on OpenAlexaffabout
Khalid Al-Mekhaizeem, Michael Miriello, Averell H. Sherker

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHBsAgMedicineHepatitis B virusHBeAgHepatitis BSerologyImmunologyAntibodyInternal medicineVirus
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1It may be the only serum marker of acute hepatitis B infection during the so-called “window phase” between disappearance of HBsAg and appearance of HBsAb. It may also represent a remote resolved infection with the decline of HBsAb to undetectable levels or ongoing chronic infection with HBsAg that is escaping detection, either because of low levels of HBsAg or because of mutations in the protein that render it undetectable using certain diagnostic assays. It rarely represents a false-positive test. Acute hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is often recognized by its clinical presentation, and repeat testing after several weeks will generally detect the appearance of HBsAb. The other clinical possibilities are not easily distinguished on routine serological testing but may have important consequences, particularly in situations of chronic infection with no detection of HBsAg. Cost efficacy considerations led to a recent change in the routine heptatitis B screening algorithm at the Sir Mortimer B. Davis–Jewish General Hospital, a tertiary care, 637-bed teaching hospital in Montreal. Patients are now evaluated initially with serum HBcAb testing. A negative HBcAb test result is reported as HBV-negative, and a positive result is followed by testing for HBsAg and, if this result is negative, HBsAb. HBsAg-positive sera are tested for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) and hepatitis B e antibody (HBeAb). Between June 1999 and March 2000, 4121 individual patients who were not pregnant were screened for HBV using HBcAb as the initial test. Of these, 3273 patients tested negative (79%), and 848 patients tested positive (21%) for HBcAb. Because there was an insufficient number of samples, 24 HBcAb-positive patients were excluded from further testing. Of the remaining 824 patients, 175 (21%) tested positive for HBsAg and 649 (79%) tested negative. The 649 HBsAg-negative patients were tested for HBsAb. Of these, 446 (69%) had a titre of more than 10 IU (positive), 81 patients (12%) had a titre of less than 1 IU (negative) and 122 patients (19%) had a value ranging between 1.0 and 10 IU (low level). Therefore, 81 (2.0%) of 4121 patients screened during this 10-month period had HBcAb as the only positive marker of infection. Among HBcAb-positive patients, at least 81 (10%) of 848 had both undetectable HBsAg and HBsAb. Isolated HBcAb has been reported in up to 20% of patients tested. 2–6

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207