Solid Organ Transplantation From Hepatitis B Virus–Positive Donors: Consensus Guidelines for Recipient Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of organs from donors testing positive for hepatitis B virus (HBV) may safely expand the donor pool. The American Society of Transplantation convened a multidisciplinary expert panel that reviewed the existing literature and developed consensus recommendations for recipient management following the use of organs from HBV positive donors. Transmission risk is highest with liver donors and significantly lower with non-liver (kidney and thoracic) donors. Antiviral prophylaxis significantly reduces the rate of transmission to liver recipients from isolated HBV core antibody positive (anti-HBc+) donors. Organs from anti-HBc+ donors should be considered for all adult transplant candidates after an individualized assessment of the risks and benefits and appropriate patient consent. Indefinite antiviral prophylaxis is recommended in liver recipients with no immunity or vaccine immunity but not in liver recipients with natural immunity. Antiviral prophylaxis may be considered for up to 1 year in susceptible non-liver recipients but is not recommended in immune non-liver recipients. Although no longer the treatment of choice in patients with chronic HBV, lamivudine remains the most cost-effective choice for prophylaxis in this setting. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin is not recommended.
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 | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".