Inhibitory Effects of Ginseng (Panax ginseng) Berry on Tumour Promotion and Inflammatory Ear Oedema Induced by TPA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Occult hepatitis B infection (OHBI), defined as positive seroreactivity for HBV DNA and negative seroreactivity for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), poses a challenge due to its hidden and asymptomatic nature. This study aimed to investigate the molecular rate of OHBI in blood donors and to assess the accompanying liver function profile.Methods: Blood specimens from 200 HBsAg-negative blood donors were tested by a rapid chromatographic assay (Micro-point combo kit, USA) for HBV serological markers (HBsAg, HBsAb, HBeAg, HBeAb, and HBcAb) and detection of HBV DNA by nested PCR.Results: Of the 200 HBsAg-negative donors, 160 (80%) were seronegative for any hepatitis B serologic marker. Conversely, 5 (2.5%) HBsAb+, 4 (2%) HBcAb+, 11 (5.5%) HBsAb+HBcAb+, 20 (10%) HBcAb+HBeAb+ were positive. Of significance, 4 (2%) donors had evidence of HBV DNA, corresponding to a 2% OHBI prevalence in this population. Moreover, OHBI-positive donors presented higher levels of liver enzymes indicative of potential liver injury. OHBI was detected in 2% of blood donors, showing the risk of HBV transmissibility by blood transfusion from those who are seemingly negative for HBsAg. In addition, the high liver enzymes in OHBI-positive donors may signify a link with the outcome of chronic HBV infection.Conclusions: Our data suggest the need to develop a sensitive screening strategy to identify OHBI among blood donors in order to reduce HBV transmission. It also highlights the importance of monitoring liver function tests in OHBI-positive individuals to prevent possible liver-related complications sequelae.Keywords:Blood donors, Blood transfusion, Liver function, Occult hepatitis B 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".