Prevalence and risk factors for viral blipping in chronic hepatitis B patients treated with nucleos (t) ide analogues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical relevance of viral blipping during nucleos (t) ide analogue (NA) treatment is unclear in chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We investigated the prevalence, risk factors and clinical outcomes for those with viral blipping during NA treatment. A retrospective cohort study investigated consecutively treated CHB patients from May 2008 to February 2015 on the NAs such as entecavir (ETV), tenofovir (TDF) and lamivudine (LAM). Included patients were previously treatment naive. Viral blipping was defined as serum HBV DNA >20 IU/mL on one occasion, and not >200 IU/mL, with subsequent measurement returning to undetectable levels, that is <20 IU/mL. A total of 242 treatment-compliant CHB patients were included with 44 (18.2%) experiencing viral blipping. In multivariable Cox regression, Asian race (HR=7.40, 95% CI 1.01-54.29, P<.049), LAM therapy (vs ETV/TDF, HR=2.53, 95% CI 1.29-4.95, P<.007), higher creatinine (per SD, HR=1.47, 95% CI 1.21-1.79, P<.001), HBeAg positivity (HR=2.68, 95% CI 1.39-5.03, P<.003) and longer time to achieve undetectable HBV DNA (per month, HR=1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08, P=.001) were associated with an increased risk of viral blipping. Viral blipping did not show any significant association with viral breakthrough, HBsAg loss, ALT flares or disease progression. Viral blipping is a frequent event during NA therapy; however, it did not lead to any clinically significant outcomes. Thus, it may not require more frequent blood work and patient visits in clinical practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".