Extent of liver inflammation in predicting response to interferon α & Ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver inflammation due to HCV infection leads to fibrosis, which is an independent predictor of treatment response to interferon therapy in Chronic Hepatitis C (CHC) patients. This relationship has not been studied for liver inflammation on pretreatment liver biopsy and End of Treatment Response (ETR). ALT is a less invasive test than liver biopsy for measuring liver inflammation. Aim of this study was to compare ETR to Interferon α (recombinant Interferon) & Ribavirin in CHC patients having higher and lower grades of liver inflammation and to determine the diagnostic accuracy of pretreatment ALT for grades of liver inflammation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 876 naïve CHC patients, who completed Interferon α & Ribavirin for 24 weeks, was studied for ETR. Pretreatment grade of inflammation on liver biopsy was taken as the exposure variable. It was classified as high if there was moderate or severe and low if there was minimal or mild. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed. Diagnostic accuracy of pretreatment ALT for liver inflammation grades was determined by computing Area Under the Receiver Operator Curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Of all patients, 672 having diagnostic liver biopsy and ETR available were analyzed. Among them, 103 had high and 569 had low grades of liver inflammation. Mean age was 36.9 (SD 9.1) years, with patients with high grades being older than those with low grades inflammation (p = 0.03). High grades of liver inflammation was associated with ETR (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.18) adjusting for age, Total Leukocyte count (TLC) and pretreatment levels of ALT, irrespective of liver fibrosis. This relation remained significant for 'bridging fibrosis and cirrhosis' and not for 'no' or 'portal fibrosis'. AUROC of pretreatment ALT for males and females was moderately accurate for severe inflammation compared to minimal inflammation and less accurate for high grades compared to low grades. CONCLUSIONS: ETR in patients with higher grades of liver inflammation was 17% higher than those with lower grades irrespective of fibrosis and 9% higher for bridging fibrosis and cirrhosis. Pretreatment ALT was moderately accurate for severe inflammation only on liver biopsy in both males and females.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".