A223 MOSAIC: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTICENTRE PROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY TO EVALUATE THE EPIDEMIOLOGY, HUMANISTIC AND ECONOMIC OUTCOMES OF TREATMENT FOR CHRONIC HEPATITIS C VIRUS (HCV)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of direct acting antivirals is expected to improve the management of Chronic Hepatitis – C (c-HCV). MOSAIC an observational study conducted in 30 countries describes the profile of c-HCV patients and the impact of Interferon (IFN) treatment on Patient Reported Outcomes and outpatient consultations (Table). Consecutive c-HCV patients initiated on IFN-based treatment were followed for 48 weeks. Of 346 invited patients 279 participated; (189 treatment-naïve and 90 treatment-experienced). IFN-treatment was initiated for 55 (20%): DAA+peg-IFN+RBV: 5, peg-IFN+RBV: 19, IFN+RBV: 1, other: 30. Main reasons for not initiating IFN for physicians were: waiting for new options (32%, 13%); tolerability (15%, 7%); contraindications (9%, NA); costs (7%, 1%) and for patients inconvenience (2%); impact on social/family life and work (9%). Demographic characteristics {Mean (SD) [Range]} of the 55 treated patients: Age: 52.1 (10.39) [31–74] yrs; Duration since HCV diagnosis: 10.8 (10.1) [0 – 46] yrs; and 69.1% male. Baseline cirrhosis status was: minimal/no fibrosis: 20(36.4%), bridging fibrosis: 16(29.1%), cirrhosis: 11(20.0%), portal fibrosis: 4(7.3%) and NA: 4(7.3%). Genotype was G1: 34(61.8%), G3: 11(20.0%), G2: 6(10.9%), G6: 2(3.6%) and n = 1 (1.9%) each for G4, G5. Baseline HCV-RNA level was <800,000 IU/ml: 20(36%), > 800,000 IU/ml: 26(47%) x IU/mL, positive by qualitative assay: 5 (9%), NA: 4(7%). Employment decreased from 46% to 33%. Outpatient consultation during treatment was none: 64%; 1: 11%. >=4: 20%. IFN use in c-HCV patients in MOSAIC is low. Patients treated with IFN-containing regimens experience a substantial negative impact on QoL and productivity. Anticipated availability of new IFN-free regimens is the main reason for not initiating treatment with IFN. Change from baseline EOT: End of Treatment; EQ-5D-5L: EuroQol 5; HCV-PRO: Hepatitis C Patient Reported Outcome Instrument; WPAI: Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire; WPI: Work Productivity Impairment; AI: Activity Impairment. Abbvie Corporation
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".