Prevalence of transfusion‐transmitted virus infection in patients on maintenance hemodialysis from New Delhi, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transfusion-transmitted virus (TTV) has been reported from a number of hemodialysis (HD) units from various countries throughout the world. TTV has been associated with liver diseases, viral hepatitis B, and C. Clinical details and information regarding TTV prevalence from India are insufficient. The prevalence and clinical significance of TTV infection were studied in New Delhi, India in HD patients. Serum samples were derived from 75 patients on maintenance HD, and 75 age- and sex-matched voluntary blood donors were examined for TTV viremia by nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using primers derived from UTR (A) region of the TTV genome. The prevalence of TTV DNA in patients on HD (83%) was significantly (p<0.05) higher than in blood donors (43%). Clinical background including the mean age, sex, mean duration of HD, and mean alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels did not differ significantly between TTV DNA-positive and -negative HD patients. Fifty-four (72%) TTV-positive HD patients and 7 (56%) TTV-negative HD patients had blood transfusion histories (p>0.05). Among TTV-positive patients, Hepatitis B virus (HBV) co-infection was present in 14.2% cases while hepatitis C virus (HCV) co-infection was absent. Persistent elevation of ALT levels was observed in 7(9.3%) HD patients; 3 (43%) of them were TTV positive and 4 (57%) were TTV negative (p>0.05). All 3 TTV-positive patients with elevated ALT levels were co-infected with HBV. Patients with TTV infection alone showed normal ALT levels. Prevalence of TTV infection is high in North Indian patients on maintenance HD. Also, none of the exclusively TTV DNA-positive patients had clinical or biochemical signs of liver disease. TTV seems to spread through parenteral routes. More often, TTV seems to be associated with parenterally transmitted virus HBV, indicating a parenteral mode of TTV transmission. The pathogenicity of TTV remains unclear from the present study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".