Liver-related Events in Human Immunodeficiency Virus–infected Persons With Occult Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients are at increased risk of liver-related mortality. The effect of occult cirrhosis (OcC), defined as preclinical compensated cirrhosis without any clinical findings, on liver-related events is unknown. METHODS: HIV-infected patients from 2 Canadian cohorts underwent transient elastography (TE) examination and were classified as (1) OcC (TE ≥13 kPa with no sign of cirrhosis, including absence of thrombocytopenia and signs of advanced liver disease on ultrasound or gastroscopy); (2) overt cirrhosis (OvC) (TE ≥13 kPa with signs of cirrhosis); or (3) noncirrhotic patients (TE <13 kPa). Incidence and risk factors of liver-related events were investigated through Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses, respectively. We estimated monitoring rates according to screening guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by OcC and OvC status. RESULTS: A total of 1092 HIV-infected patients (51% coinfected with hepatitis C virus) were included. Prevalence of OcC and OvC at baseline was 2.7% and 10.7%, respectively. During a median follow-up of 1.8 (interquartile range, 1.5-2.8) years, the incidence of liver-related events in noncirrhosis, OcC, and OvC was 3.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-7.3), 34.0 (95% CI, 6.0-104.0), and 37.0 (95% CI, 17.0-69.1) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Baseline OcC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 7.1 [95% CI, 1.3-38.0]) and OvC (aHR, 8.5 [95% CI, 2.8-26.0]) were independently associated with liver-related events. Monitoring rates for HCC were lower in patients with OcC (24%) compared to those with OvC (40%). CONCLUSIONS: HIV-infected patients with OcC have a high incidence of liver-related events. Greater surveillance and earlier recognition with appropriate screening strategies are necessary for improved outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".