MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965486334 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v13.i30.4085

Baseline HBV DNA level is the most important factor associated with virologic breakthrough in chronic hepatitis B treated with lamivudine

2007· article· en· W1965486334 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hee Bok Chae

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoUniversity of MichiganGilead SciencesGlaxoSmithKlineBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsLamivudineHBeAgMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyHepatitis BChronic hepatitisLogistic regressionHepatitis B virusImmunologyVirologyHBsAgVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To identify the factors associated with virologic breakthrough and to select a subgroup of patients who respond well to lamivudine without developing virologic breakthrough (VBT). METHODS: Of 79 patients who had received lamivudine therapy for 9-57 mo, 34 were HBeAg-positive and 45 were HBeAg-negative, 24 developed virologic breakthrough and 55 did not. Clinical and virologic factors were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The median duration of therapy was 25 (9-57) mo. Virologic breakthrough was defined as a > 1 log HBV DNA increase following initial suppression. When several factors, including gender, duration of infection, baseline HBV DNA, and baseline ALT in HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis patients were analyzed by logistic regression, the most important predictor of virologic breakthrough was the baseline HBV DNA (r2 = 0.12, P < 0.05). When HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis patients were divided into two groups by a point of 6.6 log HBV DNA, the incidence of virologic breakthough between two groups was significantly different. CONCLUSION: Lamivudine may remain an effective first line therapy for those HBeAg-positive patients with a baseline HBV DNA < 6.6 log10 copies/mL.

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)0.001
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 score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of GastroenterologySame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207