Occult hepatitis B virus infection in the setting of hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co‐infection: Clinically relevant or a diagnostic problem?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical relevance of occult hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, defined as detectable HBV DNA serum/liver, in the absence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), is unclear. We determined the prevalence of serum occult HBV infection in HIV/HCV co-infected patients enrolled in APRICOT, a randomized multinational trial that investigated the efficacy and safety of peginterferon alfa-2a (40 kDa) plus ribavirin for treatment of HCV. We also examined the effect of prior HBV exposure to liver histology at baseline. Only HBsAg-negative patients were eligible. At screening, serum HBV DNA was assessed by commercial assay (detection limit = 200 copies/mL). Patients were divided into four serological groups: anti-HBs+/anti-HBc+; anti-HBs-/anti-HBc+; anti-HBs+/ anti-HBc-; anti-HBs-/anti-HBc-. Baseline liver biopsy grade and stage were compared among groups. Serum HBV DNA was undetectable in all patients, (n = 866). Results of anti-HBs and anti-HBc was available for 176 patients: 60 (34.1%) anti-HBs+/anti-HBc+; 60 (34.1%) anti-HBs-/anti-HBc+; 11 (6.3%) anti-HBs+/anti-HBc-; 45 (25.6%) anti-HBs-/anti-HBc-. There were no differences among the groups in the histological grade or stage at baseline liver biopsies. Occult HBV infection in serum was not detected in this large immunocompetent cohort. Moreover, prior exposure to HBV did not appear to have any affect on baseline liver histology.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".