Chronic Hepatitis C in Western Canada: A Survey of Practice Patterns among Gastroenterologists in Alberta and British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To survey gastroenterologists in British Columbia and Alberta with regard to awareness of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) management and practice patterns among physicians who treat and do not treat HCV-infected patients. METHODS: An anonymous two-page mail survey was distributed to actively practicing adult gastroenterologists in British Columbia and Alberta. Among physicians who treated HCV patients, respondents answered assessment of fibrosis pretreatment, measurement of rapid virological response, prescription of protease inhibitors (PIs), barriers to using these agents and referral patterns. For those who did not treat HCV, referral of patients for treatment and to whom was assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-seven of 166 individuals completed the survey (46% response rate). Most (49%) practiced in academic or large community (42%) settings. Chronic liver disease comprised <25% of individual practice in 71%. Forty-eight (62%) treated HCV and two-thirds prescribed a PI. Barriers to prescription included unfamiliarity (six of 16), lack of allied health (five of 16) and few suitable patients (seven of 16). Pretreatment liver biopsy was performed by 33% (16 of 48) and 69% (33 of 48) used noninvasive measures. Rapid virological response was measured in 83% (40 of 48). Referral patterns changed in 46% (22 of 48) of physicians who treated HCV. All respondents who did not treat HCV referred patients for consideration, with 90% (26 of 29) made to hepatologists. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic liver disease comprised <25% of practice in the majority of surveyed respondents. Among those who treated HCV, one-third have not prescribed a PI. Barriers to prescription and referral pattern changes are noted by those currently treating patients with HCV infection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".