Characterization of Acute and Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Genotypes in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prevalence and distribution of hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotypes in Canada is not known. Genotypic analysis may contribute to a better understanding of HBV strain distribution and transmission risk. METHODS: HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) positive samples of acute (n = 152) and chronic (n = 1533) HBV submitted for strain analysis or reference genotype testing between 2006 and 2012 were analyzed. The HBsAg coding region was amplified to determine the HBV genotype by INNO-LiPA assay or sequence analysis. Single and multivariate analyses were used to describe genotypes' associations with known demographic and behavioral risk factors for 126 linked cases of acute HBV. RESULTS: Nine genotypes were detected (A to I), including mixed infections. Genotype C (HBV/C) dominated within chronic infections while HBV/D and A prevailed among acute HBV cases. History of incarceration and residing with a chronic HBV carrier or injection drug user were the most frequently reported risks for acute HBV infection. Over time, HBV/A increased among both acute and chronic infections, and HBV/C and HBV/D decreased among chronic infections. CONCLUSION: Chronic and acute HBV genotypes in Canada differ in the relative distribution and their associations with known risk factors, suggesting different routes of transmission and clinical progression of 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".