MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123913599 · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.61.3745

Hepatitis B Virus Screening for Patients With Cancer Before Therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion Update

2015· article· en· W2123913599 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Hwang, Mark R. Somerfield, Devena E. Alston-Johnson, Donna R. Cryer, Jordan J. Feld, Barnett S. Kramer, Anita L. Sabichi, Sandra L. Wong, Andrew Artz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMedicineHBsAgHepatitis B virusContext (archaeology)Hepatitis BInternal medicineCancerImmunologyOncologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This updated provisional clinical opinion presents a revised opinion based on American Society of Clinical Oncology panel consensus in the context of an evolving database. CONTEXT: Despite the 2010 provisional clinical opinion recommendation, there is still evidence of suboptimal hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening among patients at high risk for HBV infection or HBV reactivation after chemotherapy. This updated provisional clinical opinion introduces a risk-adaptive strategy to identify and treat patients with HBV infection to reduce their risk of HBV reactivation. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: Medical providers should screen by testing patients for HBV infection before starting anti-CD20 therapy or hematopoietic cell transplantation. Providers should also screen patients with risk factors for HBV infection. Screening should include both hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc), because reactivation can occur in patients who are HBsAg positive/anti-HBc positive or HBsAg negative/anti-HBc positive. Either total anti-HBc or anti-HBc immunoglobulin G (not immunoglobulin M) test should be used. Clinicians should start antiviral therapy for HBsAg-positive/anti-HBc-positive patients before or contemporaneously with cancer therapy and monitor HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients for reactivation with HBV DNA and ALT levels, promptly starting antivirals if reactivation occurs. Clinicians can initiate antivirals for HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients anticipating cancer therapies associated with a high risk of reactivation, or they can monitor HBV DNA and ALT levels and initiate on-demand antivirals. For patients who neither have HBV risk factors nor anticipate cancer therapy associated with a high risk of reactivation, current evidence does not support HBV screening before initiation of cancer therapy. Two panel members provided a minority viewpoint, involving a strategy of universal HBsAg and selective anti-HBc testing.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.013

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations173
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207