Replication and infectivity of hepatitis B virus in HBV-related glomerulonephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the presence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA) in renal tissues from patients with HBV-related glomerulonephritis. METHODS: Renal tissue biopsies taken from patients with HBV-related glomerulonephritis and two control groups were prepared for immunocytochemical detection of HBsAg and HBcAg. HBV cccDNA was examined using a nested PCR. RESULTS: Of the 63 HBV-related glomerulonephritis patients studied, HBsAg was present in the renal tissues of 48 (76.2%) and HBcAg in the renal tissues of 27 (42.9%). The HBsAg and HBcAg positive rates in HBV-related glomerulonephritis patients were higher than those of the 20 patients with non-HBV-related glomerulonephritis (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference when the HBV-related glomerulonephritis patients were compared with 12 patients with renal tuberculosis, renal atrophy, renal calculus, and renal tumor with positive serum HBV markers. In patients with HBV-related glomerulonephritis, there was no significant difference in HBsAg and HBcAg positive rates in renal tissue between patients with and without serum hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg). By nested PCR, two of five patients with HBV-related glomerulonephritis were positive for HBV cccDNA. CONCLUSION: The location and replication of HBV in renal tissue make the kidney a potential reservoir for HBV. HBV cccDNA may be key in the search for anti-HBV drugs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".