[Prophylaxis and therapy of hepatitis B after liver transplantation].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
About 25% of all liver transplantations in USA are performed for liver disease due to viral hepatitis, 25% of them related to hepatitis B. It is also known that 90%-100% of transplanted persons with proven replicative stage of hepatitis B [HBeAg (+), HBV DNA (+)] develop reinfection of the transplanted liver in the absence of prophylaxis. This percentage is lower (30%-50%) in patients with nonreplicative stage of infection [HBeAg (-), HBV DNA (-)]. The consequence of most transplant infections is death due to the transplanted organ failure. The prophylaxis of infection is possible, however a combination of intravenous hepatitis B hyperimmune gammaglobulin and lamivudin may be too expensive for some transplantation centers in less developed countries. The aim of this article is to recommend prophylaxis and treatment of recurrent hepatitis B in persons with transplanted liver using data of the Consensus Conference on Hepatitis B in Geneva 2002, Canadian Consensus Group for Hepatitis (CASL) and EASL International Consensus Conference on Hepatitis B that should be available for patients in Croatia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".