Differing profiles of people diagnosed with acute and chronic hepatitis B virus infection in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the characteristics of people diagnosed with acute and chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in British Columbia (BC). METHODS: We used data from the BC Hepatitis Testers Cohort (BC-HTC), which includes all individuals tested for hepatitis C virus (HCV) or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or those diagnosed with HBV or active tuberculosis in BC since 1990. These data were integrated with prescription drug, medical visit, hospitalization and mortality data. HBV cases were classified as acute or chronic according to provincial guidelines. We compared characteristics of individuals by HBV infection group (acute, chronic and negative). Factors associated with acute or chronic HBV infection were assessed with multinomial logistic regression models in comparison to the HBV negative group. RESULTS: 46498 of the 1058056 eligible BC-HTC participants were diagnosed with HBV infection. 4.3% of HBV positive individuals were diagnosed with acute HBV infections while 95.7% had chronic infections. Problematic alcohol use, injection drug use, and HIV or HCV co-infection were more common among individuals diagnosed with acute HBV compared to those with chronic infections and HBV negative individuals. In multivariable multinomial logistic regression models, we observed significant associations between acute or chronic HBV diagnosis and being male, age at HBV diagnosis or birth cohort, South and East Asian ethnicity, HCV or HIV infection, and injection drug use. The odds of acute HBV decreased with increasing age among people who inject drugs, while the opposite was true for chronic HBV. Persons with acute HBV were predominantly White (78%) while those with chronic HBV were mostly East Asian (60%). Relative to Whites, East Asians had 12 times greater odds of being diagnosed with chronic HBV infection. These odds increased with increasing socioeconomic deprivation. CONCLUSION: Differences in the profiles of people diagnosed with acute and chronic HBV infection necessitate differentiated screening, prevention, care and treatment programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".