MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980883901 · doi:10.1159/000317290

Rates of Infection and Phylogenetic Analysis of GB Virus-C among Kuwaiti and Jordanian Blood Donors

2010· article· en· W1980883901 on OpenAlexaff
Raed Abu Odeh, Salem R. Yasin, Gheyath K. Nasrallah, Yaman Babi

Bibliographic record

VenueIntervirology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersUtah Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsGenotypeVirologyBiologyPhylogenetic treeGenBankVirusGB virus CMedicineHepatitis C virusVeterinary medicineFlaviviridaeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: GB virus-C/hepatitis G virus (GBV-C/HGV), collectively known as GBV-C, has been reported to be associated with non-A-E hepatitis. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of infection and genotypic characteristics of GBV-C among Kuwaiti and Jordanian blood donors. METHODS: A total of 334 plasma/serum samples from healthy blood donors in Kuwait (n = 130) and Jordan (n = 204) were screened using RT-PCR/nested PCR of the 5'-untranslated region (5'-UTR). Phylogenetic analysis was conducted by sequencing the 5'-UTR region of the randomly picked clones representative of the two populations. RESULTS: The results obtained showed that the rate of GBV-C infection in healthy Kuwaiti and Jordanian blood donors was 24.6 and 9.8%, respectively. Sequence analysis of the 5'-UTR using 4 and 6 clones from healthy Kuwaiti and Jordanian blood donors, respectively, revealed the prevalence of the European/North American genotype 2 when compared to the 6 reference genotypes in GenBank. CONCLUSION: GBV-C/HGV was detectable at rates relatively comparable with other regions in the world in Kuwaiti and Jordanian blood donors, although the significance of which remains controversial. More interesting is the dominance of GBV-C genotype 2 among the two populations, which remains to be explained.

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 score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntervirologySame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207