MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020093462 · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2008.03.015

Detection of hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis B core antigen, and hepatitis B virus DNA in parotid tissues

2008· article· en· W2020093462 on OpenAlexaff
Lizhang Chen, Fuqiang Liu, Xuegong Fan, Nengzhi Chen, Tom Wong, Jun Wu, Shi Wu Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirologyHepatitis B virusAntigenHepatitis BHepatitis B virus DNA polymeraseMedicineVirusImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the presence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA in parotid tissues from patients with positive serum HBV markers. METHODS: HBsAg and HBcAg were examined in parotid biopsy tissues from patients with suspected parotid tumor and positive serum HBV markers by immunocytochemistry, and HBV DNA was detected in parotid tissues by PCR. RESULTS: Among the 22 patients with a parotid tumor, only one was pathologically confirmed as a neoplasm; all others were benign. HBsAg and HBcAg were present in parotid cells with positive rates of 45.5% (10/22) and 40.9% (9/22), respectively, with an overall positive rate of 54.5% (12/22). Of the 22 cases with serum markers of HBV infection, seven (31.8%) had both HBsAg and HBcAg in the parotid cells. HBV DNA was present in seven of the 12 samples in which hepatitis B antigen was detected (58.3%). CONCLUSIONS: HBV in saliva might originate from the infected salivary glands and the infectious saliva could transmit HBV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207