Epidemiological characteristics of the carriers with coexistence of <scp>HB</scp>sAg and anti‐<scp>HB</scp>s based on a community cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coexistence of HBsAg and anti-HBs is an atypical serological pattern in HBV infection. There is no epidemiological characteristics of this serological pattern in the community and there is controversy over the molecular mechanisms underlying this pattern. We investigated the epidemiological characteristics of the carriers with HBsAg and anti-HBs in a longitudinal community cohort study. The prevalence of this atypical serological pattern was 2.93% (122/4169) in HBsAg-positive populations. The prevalence progressively increased with age from 40 to 70 years old. The rate of HBeAg positive and detectable HBV DNA were both significantly higher in carriers with this pattern than in carriers who were HBsAg positive but anti-HBs negative (26/122 verse 598/4047, P = 0.046; 86/122 verse 275/529,P < 0.001). After 1 year of follow-up, 85.19% of the carriers still had coexistence HBsAg and anti-HBs, 14.81% of the carriers lost their anti-HBs. Viral sequencing showed that carriers with coexistence of HBsAg and anti-HBs had higher numbers of residue changes within the S gene than carriers who were HBsAg positive but anti-HBs negative (2.42 verse 1.33 changes per 100 residues, P < 0.05). Hence, the coexistence of HBsAg and anti-HBs is a unique serological pattern which may be associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical outcome and may be related to HBsAg immune variants which have genotypic heterogeneity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".