MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084530058 · doi:10.1136/gut.2006.094292

Disappointing results of combination therapy for HCV?: Table 1

2006· letter· en· W2084530058 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tracey Dudley

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVirologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a common cause of liver disease in the UK. HCV can cause liver failure and liver cancer, and is a frequent indication for liver transplantation. HCV infection can be cured by antiviral therapy. Standard therapy includes the combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PEG-IFN/RIBA) for 24 or 48 weeks, according to HCV genotype.1–3 A sustained virological response (SVR), defined as undetectable serum HCV RNA six months after cessation of therapy, indicates successful treatment, almost certainly cure. Published registration trials reported encouraging SVR rates of 42–52% for genotype 1 and 77–88% for genotypes 2/3.1–3 However, analysis of the combined experience of six European and US centres reported significantly worse results.4 In that report, the response rate to treatment of genotype 1 infection with pegylated IFN alpha 2a and ribavirin was only 36%. Also, a large US based prospective randomised study reported response rates of 29–34%, depending on the dose of ribavirin used.5 In contrast, a Canadian study that prospectively tracked patients receiving HCV treatment reported SVR rates …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207