Patient‐reported outcomes in patients chronic viral hepatitis without cirrhosis: The impact of hepatitis B and C viral replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIM: Chronic infections with hepatitis B or C (HBV and HCV) are associated with adverse clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The aim is to compare PRO scores in patients with chronic HBV and HCV without advanced liver disease before and after suppression/clearance of their infection. METHODS: Patients with HCV and HBV infection prior to initiation of antiviral treatment and after viral suppression/eradication completed PRO questionnaires. RESULTS: We included 132 patients with HBV and 132 matched patients with HCV. Baseline PRO scores were significantly higher in patients with HBV in the domains of Physical Functioning, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, Social Functioning, and Role Emotional of SF-36, SF-6D utility, Emotional and Fatigue domains of CLDQ, Presenteeism and total Work Productivity Impairment of WPAI:SHP in comparison to patients with HCV by 5.8%-13.2% of a PRO score range (all P < 0.05). After viral suppression (HBV DNA < 20 IU/mL after 48 weeks of treatment for HBV) or eradication (SVR-12 for HCV), only Physical Functioning and Role Physical scores remained higher in HBV by 6.7%-9.9%, while other PRO scores became similar between HBV and HCV groups (P > 0.05). The most prominent improvement of PROs in HCV was noted in Vitality, Emotional, Fatigue and Worry domains. In addition, General Health, Worry and Work Productivity scores were the most improved in HBV. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to treatment, PRO scores were lower in patients with HCV in comparison to HBV. After successful treatment, both groups of patients experienced improvement in some PRO domains confirming the positive impact of treatment.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".