A189 NON-ALCOHOLIC FATTY LIVER DISEASE AND SEN-V INFECTION: AN INTERIM ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common liver disease in which 10–20% of patients are at risk of progressing to cirrhosis. Several risk factors and genetic variants have been proposed to explain such progression but these fail to explain all cases. SEN-V is a hepatotropic ssDNA virus transmitted by both parenteral and non-parenteral routes. In a previous study we documented serologic evidence of SEN-V infection in 21% of 108 patients with chronic Hepatitis B (HBV), C (HCV) or PBC disease. In a recent Japanese study, HCV patients who were SEN-V positive had higher rates of disease progression than those who were SEN-V negative. Conversely, in an Iranian study, liver enzyme levels were lower in HBV patients co-infected with SEN-V. No study has yet documented the prevalence or impact of SEN-V infection in NAFLD. Aims To determine the prevalence and impact of SEN-V infection in NAFLD. Methods Thirty-three consecutive patients with NAFLD confirmed on liver biopsy had serologic testing for SEN-V DNA using short and long primer target sequences; sequencing was confirmed by BLAST and phylogenetic analysis. Patients with other causes of chronic liver disease were excluded. ALT levels, NAFLD activity scores (NAS), and fibrosis scores on biopsy were compared between the SEN-V positive and negative groups using Mann-Whitney, t-test, and chi squared as appropriate. Results SEN-V serologic testing was positive in 15/33 (45%) NAFLD patients, significantly higher than the 24/108 (21%) reported in non-NAFLD historical controls (p < 0.01). Mean serum ALT levels were similar in the two cohorts (SEN-V positive: 109 +/- 163 versus SEN-V negative: 62 +/- 54 IU/L, p= 0.27). The median NAS scores were identical in both groups (5/8) 95% CI [3,6]. Although the median fibrosis stage in SEN-V positive patients was lower (1.0 95% CI [0,3] vs. 2.5 95% CI [1,4] respectively), the difference did not reach statistical significance (p= 0.27). Conclusions Within the limits of this small interim analysis, serologic evidence of SEN-V infection was more common amongst NAFLD patients than historical controls with non-NAFLD chronic liver diseases. However, there were no significant differences in ALT levels, NAS scores or fibrosis stages between SEN-V positive versus negative NAFLD patients. These results suggest that if SEN-V infection has any impact on NAFLD, it may contribute to the development but not severity of the disease. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".