Does cirrhosis affect quality of life in hepatitis C virus‐infected patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major cause of chronic liver disease and is associated with impairments in health-related quality of life. AIMS: To evaluate quality of life (QOL) in cirrhotic (compensated and decompensated) and non-cirrhotic patients with chronic HCV infection, using preference-based (utilities) and non-preference-based methods of evaluating QOL. METHODS: In a tertiary care setting, 271 patients completed a self-administered time trade-off utility instrument, the Health Utility Index Mark 2 and Mark 3, and the Hepatitis Quality of Life Questionnaire Version 2. Mean QOL scores were compared across HCV disease stages and sociodemographical categories. We examined the association between QOL and disease stage using linear regression adjusting for age, education, marital status, log income and Charlson comorbidity scores. Mean utility scores were compared across disease stages using a propensity score method. RESULTS: Mean utilities were lower than general population norms (0.81-0.92) and ranged from 0.62 to 0.82 in non-cirrhotic patients (n=197), 0.56-0.84 in compensated cirrhotic patients (n=17) and 0.55-0.76 for decompensated cirrhotic patients (n=57). No significant association found was between disease stage and utility for current health status. Higher income, fewer comorbidities and living in a married or common-law relationship were significantly associated with higher utilities and better QOL. No significant difference in utilities was found between disease stages using propensity score matching. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that changes in HCV disease stage explain only small changes in QOL and suggests that factors such as underlying comorbidities, income and marital status have a greater effect on QOL than disease stage.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".