Prevalence of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen (HBsAg) Among HIV Seropositive Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis B virus (HBV) share the routes of transmission as a consequences infection with Hepatitis B Virus are expected to occur in HIV infected patients. The co-infection of Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) have become a major health care catastrophe as it complicates the clinical course, management and therapy for HIV infection. Hence it is important to identify them as early as possible. Aim: The prevalence of HBV co-infection with HIV varies widely across different studies within India and outsides. This study is planned to evaluate the prevalence of HIV-HBV co-infection by HBsAg screening in HIV seropositive patients in our region. Material and Method: A total of 140 HIV seropositive patients were screened for the presence of Hepatitis B virus on the basis of the presence of HBsAg. Result: In patients infected with HIV the prevalence of HBsAg was 7.1% (10/140) wherease in control group it was 1% (5/500). Discussion: Our study documents fairly high rate of Hepatitis B co-infection among HIV seropositive patients suggesting that it should be mandatory to screen every HIV seropositive patient and their sexual partners for co infection with HBV and vice versa for early detection and a simultaneous treatment of hepatitis B co-infection beside HIV infection management to reduce the morbidity, delay mortality and improve quality of life in HIV-AIDS patients.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".