[Hepatitis B: who should be treated?].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current therapy for hepatitis B has a limited effect and can rarely eradicate viral infection (normalization of ALT, nullification of HBV DNA, or seroconversion of HBsAg to anti-HBs). Progress in hepatitis B therapy over the last 5 years did not have much influence in this segment. Modifications in therapeutic indications for both acute and chronic hepatitis B presented below are based on standings of the Consensus Conference of the American National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 2008, Canadian Consensus Conference from 2007, and Consensus Conference of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) from 2009. It seemed appropriate to retain the division of treatable patients in 3 groups: 1) patients in whom therapy is indicated; 2) patients in whom therapy may be indicated; and 3) patients in whom immediate therapy is not routinely indicated, as stated in the guidelines of the 2002 EASL Consensus Conference, 2004 Croatian Consensus Conference and 2008 NIH Consensus Conference.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".