Baseline assessment of and linkage to care for newly diagnosed patients with chronic hepatitis B
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) are at risk of complications and require lifelong monitoring. We evaluated the care of newly diagnosed CHB patients. METHODS: Adult CHB cases newly diagnosed in Alberta between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012, were identified, with follow-up through June 1, 2014. Rates of completion of baseline investigations, receipt of antiviral therapy when indicated, and adherence to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening recommendations in a cohort of high-risk patients were compared between those who did or did not see a CHB specialist. RESULTS: Of 3,333 patients with CHB, 87.1% ( n = 2,904) received non-specialty care. Specialty assessment was associated with higher completion of alanine aminotransferase, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), anti-HBe, and hepatitis B DNA ( p <0.0001) and all four parameters (86.5%) compared with non-specialist care (42.7%; p <0.0001). In a subgroup of high-risk patients for HCC, specialty care was associated with higher completed baseline abdominal ultrasounds ( n = 44; 89.8%,) compared with non-specialist care (62.5%; n = 320; p = 0.0001) and greater adherence to annual surveillance (30.6% versus 15.2%; p = 0.0057). Patients in the HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis phase meeting criteria for antiviral therapy were more likely to receive treatment under specialty care ( n = 6; 75.0%) than non-specialty care ( n = 27; 33.3%; p = 0.0478). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights inadequate care among newly diagnosed CHB patients in Alberta. Specialty assessment was associated with improved quality of care. Interventions are needed to improve linkage to specialty care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".