A Multicenter United States—Canadian Trial to Assess Lamivudine Monotherapy Before and After Liver Transplantation for Chronic Hepatitis B
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seventy-seven liver transplant candidates were enrolled in a multicenter study in which patients were treated with lamivudine (100 mg daily) without the adjunctive use of hepatitis B immune globulin. Treatment was begun while patients awaited liver transplantation and continued after transplantation. All were hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive, and 61% had detectable hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) and HBV DNA when treatment was begun. Forty-seven underwent liver transplantation and 30 did not. Median study participation was 38 months (range, 2.7-48.5) in the transplanted patients and 26 months (range, 0.1-37) in the nontransplanted group. Twenty-five of 42 (60%) transplanted patients with 12 or more weeks of posttransplantation follow-up were HBsAg negative at the last study visit. At treatment week 156, 13 of 22 (59%) remained HBsAg negative, and all 9 reinfected patients were HBV-DNA positive before treatment. In the nontransplanted patients, HBeAg was initially detectable in 20 of 27 (74%) but this decreased to 3 of 17 (18%) after 104 weeks of treatment, and significant improvement in biochemical parameters was observed. HBV-DNA polymerase mutants were detected in 15 (21%) and 6 (20%) of the transplanted and nontransplanted patients, respectively. When compared with historical cohorts, lamivudine-treated patients appeared to have improved survival, and transplanted patients had a decrease in the rate of recurrent HBV infection. Lamivudine therapy was partially effective in preventing recurrent HBV infection when given before and after transplantation. Thus, future trials using a combination of HBIg and lamivudine are needed to assess the optimal prophylactic therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".