MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470638608 · doi:10.1007/s40506-016-0080-x

Review of Laboratory Tests used in Monitoring Hepatitis B Response to Pegylated Interferon and Nucleos(t)ide Analog Therapy

2016· review· en· W2470638608 on OpenAlexaff
Carla Osiowy, Carla S. Coffin, Anton Andonov

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent treatment options in infectious diseases/Current treatment options in infectious disease · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePegylated interferonHepatitis B virusImmunologyHepatitis BVirologyAntigenInterferonChronic hepatitisVirusRibavirin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is estimated to affect approximately 0.8–1.1 % of Canadians [ 1 , 2 ]. Antiviral treatments approved and available in Canada for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection include interferon (standard or pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN)) and nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAs), including an l -nucleoside analog (lamivudine (LAM)), acyclic nucleoside phosphonates (adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)), and a d -cyclopentane class nucleoside analog (entecavir (ETV)) [ 3 ]. Although most Canadian provinces and territories provide some measure of health plan reimbursement or coverage for these treatments, there may be strict clinical restrictions imposed for reimbursement, especially for more expensive second-generation NA (i.e., TDF and ETV), which limits their use and effectiveness [ 4 – 6 ]. Treatment is normally restricted to CHB carriers in a prolonged immune-active phase of infection or with advanced liver disease. In both HBV e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and HBeAg-negative patients, clinicians assess on-treatment response to NA by monitoring serum HBV DNA (i.e., suppression of viral replication), antibody to HBeAg (anti-HBe) seroconversion (in HBeAg-positive patients), normalization of serum liver transaminases, and improvement in liver stiffness or histology, as determined by transient elastography (FibroScan ®) or liver biopsy [ 7 •, 8 ]. Large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that achievement of these surrogate clinical endpoints lead to reduced risk of liver disease progression, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development, and even fibrosis regression [ 9 , 10 ]. In contrast, the assessment of response to Peg-IFN therapy is mainly based on off-treatment virological and clinical markers. Thus, a “sustained virologic response” (SVR) to Peg-IFN therapy is defined as HBeAg loss (in HBeAg-positive patients), HBV DNA <2000 IU/mL, as well as persistent normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) at 6 months after the end of treatment. HBsAg loss is rare but more likely to occur with Peg-IFN compared to NA treatment [ 11 ]. As discussed below, recent data indicate that quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen (qHBsAg), as well as HBV DNA testing, could predict SVR to Peg-IFN therapy and NA. Table 1 describes the summary of current international guidelines for NA cessation and definitions of treatment response and relapse following withdrawal.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent treatment options in infectious diseases/Current treatment options in infectious diseaseSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207