Management of Chronic Hepatitis C: Consensus Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the last consensus conference on the management of chronic viral hepatitis, a number of studies looking at modifications of the standard course of treatment have been published. These changes have been sufficiently substantive to warrant review to determine whether any changes in the recommended treatment algorithms are needed. A consensus development conference was held in January 2007, and the present document highlights the results of the presentations and discussion about these issues. It reviews the epidemiology of hepatitis C in Canada, treatment of acute hepatitis C and new algorithms in chronic hepatitis C, including retreatment of previous treatment failures. In addition, sections on management of hepatitis C in special populations have been updated. There is also a section on the use of hematopoietic growth factors to help manage patients on therapy. The document should be read in conjunction with the previous document to identify changes. Some recommendations made in the previous document remain and are not discussed here.
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 | 0.023 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".