Treatment Outcome in Chronic Hepatitis C Infection: A Four Years Survey Among Iranian Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is universal. Side effects of its treatment are observed in many patients. The present study was designed to evaluate treatment outcome and side effects of the treatment in chronic HCV infection. MATERIALS & METHODS: The current study was conducted prospectively on patients with hepatitis C infection. They had been treated with the standard drug regimen, if indicated. They were followed for treatment response, side effects of therapy, and its related factors. FINDINGS: From ninety one patients, eighty four persons finished their treatment course. They comprised 71 (84.5%) males and 13 (15.5%) females. Their mean age was 41.5 ± 11.90 years (20-69 years). Genotype 3 was the most common virus genotype (51.2%). Sustained virologic response (SVR) was 84.5% for genotype 3 and 47.5% for genotype 1. Decrease in hemoglobin (43%), weakness and fatigue (26%), neutropenia (13%), and thrombocytopenia (13%) were the most common side effects of the treatment. Seven patients can not finish their treatment course, because of the side effects. CONCLUSION: Genotype 3, viral load less than 600000, and more than 3- fold rise in AST are associated with higher SVR. Early administration of the added drugs such as erythropoietin and G-CSF to not reduce the drug doses were also influential.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".