Retrospective Study Investigating the Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Hepatitis B Virus Precore and Basal Core Promoter Variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) precore (PC) and basal core promoter (BCP) variants are well known; however, their prevalence in North America is unclear, especially among hepatitis B e antigen-negative patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of PC⁄BCP mutations and their clinical significance. METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight patients positive for both hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis B e antibody were selected, and PC⁄BCP mutations were identified using a line probe assay. The subjects' charts were reviewed for race⁄ethnicity, HBV genotype, HBV viral load, sex, liver enzyme levels, imaging and biopsy results up to 10 years before the study. RESULTS: The prevalence of PC and BCP variants were 47.6% and 62.5%, respectively. Older age was associated with aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet index ratio (APRI) ≥0.7 (P=0.011) and abnormal imaging⁄biopsy results (P=0.0008). Although the presence of BCP variant(s) was associated with APRI ≥0.7 (P=0.029), it was not associated with abnormal imaging⁄biopsy results. The combination of age ≥50 years and the presence of BCP variant(s) was associated with abnormal imaging⁄biopsy results, suggestive of either cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (not observed with PC mutation). Neither sex or genotype, or median HBV viral load showed significant influence on any of these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that the prevalence of PC and BCP mutations are higher than what has been previously reported. One potential explanation would be increased immigration in the past decade. Considering the potential public health and clinical implications of these variants, long-term multicentre and prospective studies could further unravel the uncertainty around these variants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".