Optimizing outcomes in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 or 4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, many decisions for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) are based on genotype, which is the most significant baseline predictor of response to therapy; however, it has become increasingly apparent that fixed treatment durations might not be appropriate for all patients. The use of on-treatment predictors such as rapid virological response (RVR) at week 4 and early virological response (EVR) at week 12 can be used to predict the likelihood of achieving a sustained virological response (SVR), helping to tailor treatment to the individual. Until now, EVR has been defined as achieving either undetectable HCV RNA (< 50 IU/ml) or a > 2 log drop in HCV RNA, but still detectable, at week 12. However, rates of SVR in patients achieving an EVR are heterogeneous. It has recently been suggested that by subdividing EVR into RVR (< 50 IU/ml at week 4), complete EVR (HCV RNA < 50 IU/ml at week 12) or partial EVR (HCV RNA > 2 log drop in HCV RNA but still detectable [> 50 IU/ml] at week 12), it might be possible to further improve the prediction of patients likely to achieve an SVR and may allow for tailoring of treatment duration. Genotype 1 and 4 patients achieving an RVR have high rates of SVR and may be candidates for shorter treatment duration. Patients with a complete EVR achieve high SVR rates with the current treatment duration of 48 weeks, whereas patients achieving a partial EVR have lower rates of SVR and could benefit from treatment intensification to 72 weeks. Here, we discuss the importance of baseline predictors of response and the emerging concept of response-guided therapy in genotype 1 and 4 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".