Treatment of Hepatitis C in Children: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend children be treated for hepatitis C virus (HCV) using the same principles applied in adults. There are however few published studies which assess the efficacy and safety of HCV therapy in children. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A systematic review of the literature was completed for studies of any design that evaluated HCV therapy in children. The primary outcome was sustained virologic response (SVR), with sub-group analysis of response rates by genotype. There were 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 non-randomized studies, all involving interferon, pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN), or combinations of these drugs with ribavirin. The SVR rate could not be directly compared as the populations and interventions differed across studies. Genotype was not reported or differed substantially from study to study. The overall SVR rate for PEG-IFN and ribavirin ranged from 30 to 100% which is comparable to the rate in adults. Similar to adults, the SVR rates were significantly higher in children with genotype 2 or 3 compared to genotype 1. Adverse effects were primarily flu-like symptoms and neutropenia. There were insufficient data to assess the applicability of the week 12 stop rule (stopping therapy at week 12 if there is less than a 2 log drop in HCV RNA) or the efficacy of shortening therapy to 24 weeks in children with genotype 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Current guidelines for the treatment of HCV in children are based on limited data. Further research is needed to define the optimal therapy for HCV in children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".