MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588157251 · doi:10.5114/ceh.2017.65279

Association of TNF-α and CCL5 with response to interferon-based therapy in patients with HCV 1 genotype

2017· article· en· W2588157251 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dzmitry Danilau, Д. В. Литвинчук, N V Solovey, О. V. Krasko, Igor Karpov

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Hepatology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsDirectorate for Biological SciencesNational Academy of Sciences of Belarus
KeywordsGenotypeInternal medicineLogistic regressionGastroenterologyMedicineChronic hepatitisSNPHepatitis C virusTumor necrosis factor alphaOncologyImmunologyVirusBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the role of potential genetic predictors -308G/A TNF-α and -403G/A CCL5 in treatment for HCV 1 genotype. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Treatment results of 130 patients with chronic hepatitis C 1 genotype according to different genotypes of IL28B, CCL5, and TNF-α were analysed using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: IL28B genotypes CC/CT/TT were found in 27 (20.8%), 74 (56.9%), and 29 (22.3%) patients. Genotypes GG/GA/AA of -308G/A TNF-α were revealed in 98 (75.4%), 30 (23.1%), and 2 (1.5%) patients. Genotypes GG/GA/AA of -403G/A CCL5 were revealed in 86 (66.2%), 39 (30%), and 5 (3.8%) patients, respectively. The previously known effect of IL28B was observed. IL28B TT genotype decreased end of treatment response (EOTR) rates by a factor of 29.0 (95% CI: 6.4-183). The combination of CCL5 GG and IL28B CT genotypes increased the risk of failure to achieve EOTR by a factor of 28.5 (95% CI: 7.2-160). Genotypes GA and AA of TNF-α (-308) G/A SNP increased the risk of relapse in patients who achieved EOTR (OR = 9.4; 95% CI: 2.4-48). CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners may benefit from using these predictors when considering indications for the antiviral therapy and deciding on the treatment regimen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental HepatologySame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207