Treatment of HBeAg‐positive patients with nucleos/tide analogues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two main goals of hepatitis B therapy are durable viral suppression and avoidance of antiviral resistance. Recent treatment guidelines now recognize the importance of these treatment endpoints in the prevention of end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma rather then other surrogate markers such as HBeAg seroconversion and serum alanine aminotransferase normalization, especially in patients who acquired hepatitis B virus infection early in life. A variety of therapeutic options are now available for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection, including four nucleos/tide analogues (i.e lamivudine, adefovir, entecavir and telbivudine), along with standard and pegylated interferon. Newer oral nucleos/tide analogues that include tenofovir, emtricitabine and clevudine are soon likely to be approved worldwide. Given the wide array of choices and the complex nature of chronic hepatitis B infection, selection of the appropriate therapeutic agent can be challenging for clinicians. Effective treatment decisions require an understanding of the natural history of hepatitis B and knowledge of its life cycle and molecular biology. This review includes the range of treatment options and criteria for determining when and how to most effectively intervene with antiviral therapy for chronically infected patients positive for the HBeAg.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".