The neglected hepatitis C virus genotypes 4, 5 and 6: an international consensus report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes 4, 5 and 6 represent >20% of all HCV cases worldwide. HCV-4 is mainly seen in Egypt, where it represents 90% of all HCV cases. Antischistosomal therapy was the main cause of contamination there, followed by procedures performed by informal providers and traditional healers such as dental care, wound treatment, circumcision, deliveries, excision and scarification. It is also highly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa and in the Middle East. In Europe, its prevalence has recently increased particularly among intravenous drug users and in immigrants. HCV-5 is mainly found in South Africa, where it represents 40% of all HCV genotypes, but four pockets of HCV-5 were found in France, Spain, Syria and Belgium and sporadic cases were found elsewhere. The mode of transmission is mainly iatrogenic and transfusion. HCV-6 is found in Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar and also in American and Australian from Asian origin. The response to treatment in HCV-4 is intermediate between HCV-1 and HCV-2 and HCV-3. A sustained viral response is achieved in 43-70% with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. It is higher in Egyptians than Europeans and Africans and is negatively related to insulin resistance and to the severity of fibrosis. It increases to >80% with 24 weeks of therapy only if a rapid virological response is achieved. In HCV-5, a sustained virological response is achieved in >60% with 48 weeks of therapy. HCV-6 is also considered an easy-to-treat genotype, leading to a response in 60-85% of cases.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".