MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2403453209 · doi:10.1155/2004/759124

The Challenge of Recurrent Hepatitis C Virus in Liver Transplant Recipients

2004· review· en· W2403453209 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Paul J. Marotta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatitis C virusLiver transplantationHepatitis CPegylated interferonLiver diseasePopulationNatural historyRibavirinEconomic shortageDiseaseImmunologyInternal medicineTransplantationGastroenterologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has become the leading indication for liver transplantation (LT) worldwide. Short-term graft and patient survival after LT in these individuals is comparable with other indications for LT. There is, however, a disturbing trend for decreased survival over the longer term. The natural history of HCV infection after LT is evolving. Its early recurrence and the wide spectrum of recurrent disease is recognized, from minimal histological and clinical disease to very aggressive forms of hepatic damage such as fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. There is growing concern that recurrent HCV is becoming more aggressive. Although many factors have been implicated, the causes have not been fully elucidated. Interferon-based antiviral therapy is challenging to use in this patient population because of significant toxicity. Nevertheless, these agents have some efficacy, and pegylated interferons, which are now being used more frequently, achieve superior response rates. The role of liver retransplantation in this patient population is controversial, because of both a reduced survival rate and an overall shortage of organ donors. The present review discusses the challenges that occur in LT recipients with HCV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicHepatitis C virus research→French-language works237,207→