Low compliance with hepatocellular carcinoma screening guidelines in hepatitis B/C virus co‐infected HIV patients with cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients co-infected with HIV and hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) is increasing. In patients with cirrhosis, guidelines recommend HCC screening every 6 months. We assessed compliance with HCC screening guidelines in cirrhotic HBV/HCV-HIV-co-infected patients. HBV/HCV-HIV-co-infected patients with cirrhosis were enrolled from 4 European prospective cohorts participating in the COHERE collaboration, followed from 1 January 2005-1 January 2015. Assessment of liver cirrhosis was based on clinical diagnosis and liver biopsy or Fibroscan. Compliance with HCC screening guidelines was defined as one ultrasound every 6 months. Generalized estimating equation models adjusted for repeated measurements were fitted to determine predictors of low compliance. Different sensitivity analyses were performed and validation of the data was carried out by randomly checking 10% of each cohort's data. 646 HIV-patients with the diagnosis of cirrhosis were included: 518 (80%) HCV-, 85 (13%) HBV- and 43 (7%) HBV/HCV-co-infected. Median age at cirrhosis diagnosis was 44 years, median follow-up time since diagnosis was 5.3 years. Screening </=6 months was performed in 6-18% of individuals from 2005-2015. If the screening interval was increased to 9 or 12 months, compliance improved to 7-24% and 7-30% respectively. Thus, compliance with HCC screening guidelines in cirrhotic HIV-patients co-infected with HBV and/or HCV in Europe is low. In light of an ageing population and the increasing prevalence of liver cirrhosis this situation needs to be addressed urgently. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".