Estimation of fibrosis progression rates for chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review and meta-analysis update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Mathematical models are increasingly important in planning for the upcoming chronic hepatitis C (CHC) elimination efforts. Such models require reliable natural history inputs to make accurate predictions on health and economic outcomes. Yet, hepatitis C virus disease progression is known to vary widely in the literature and published inputs are currently outdated. The objectives of this study were to obtain updated estimates of fibrosis progression rates (FPR) in treatment-naïve patients with CHC and to explore sources of heterogeneity.Design A systematic review was conducted using Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE and PubMed databases (January 1990 to January 2018) to identify observational studies of hepatic fibrosis in treatment-naïve patients with CHC.Outcomes Stage-constant FPRs were estimated for each study given the reported fibrosis scores and duration of infection. Stage-specific FPRs (ie, F0→F1; F1→F2; F2→F3; F3→F4) were estimated using Markov maximum likelihood estimation. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis and heterogeneity was evaluated by stratification and random-effects meta-regression.Results The review identified 111 studies involving 131 groups of patients (n=42 693). The pooled stage-constant FPR was 0.094 (95% CI 0.088 to 0.100); stage-specific FPRs were F0→F1: 0.107 (95% CI 0.097 to 0.118); F1→F2: 0.082 (95% CI 0.074 to 0.091); F2→F3: 0.117 (95% CI 0.107 to 0.129); F3→F4: 0.116 (95% CI 0.104 to 0.131). Stratified analysis revealed substantial variation in progression by study population. Meta-regression indicated associations between progression and infection age, duration, source, viral genotype and study population. Findings indicate that FPRs display substantial heterogeneity across study populations and pooled values from more homogenous subpopulations should be considered when estimating prognosis.Conclusions This large meta-analysis presents updated prognostic estimates for CHC derived from newer studies using better diagnostic methods and improves estimates for important patient populations in terms of clinical policy (eg, injection drug users, non-clinical populations, liver clinic patients) and should be a valuable resource for patients, clinicians and clinical policymakers.
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 | 0.047 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".