Treatment of hepatitis B virus infection in chronic infection with HBeAg-positive adult patients (immunotolerant patients): a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a controversial approach suggesting the early treatment of chronic infection with hepatitis B "e" antigen-positive patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, has been proposed. The objective of this study is to systematically review medical literature regarding treatment of HBV infection in adult chronic infection with HBeAg-positive patients. A systematic review was performed according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Original studies that evaluated the effect of antivirals in adult chronic infection with HBeAg-positive patients were included. The outcomes of interest were viral load suppression, the loss/seroconversion of HBeAg, the loss/seroconversion of hepatitis B surface antigen, and the development of cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. The search for eligible studies was performed in Excerpta Medica dataBASE, PubMed and Cochrane databases until January 2020, without language or date restriction. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials. Two hundred ninety-six articles were retrieved. After analyzing titles and abstracts, 287 articles were excluded and nine were considered potentially eligible. From these, five were excluded after full-text analysis. Finally, four articles were included. Only two were randomized controlled trials. All studies were carried out in Asian patients. Results were variable with regard to viral load, negativation/seroconversion of HBeAg and HBsAg. One study demonstrated that treated patients developed cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma less frequently than untreated individuals. Overall, the studies were of poor quality. In conclusion, the present systematic review demonstrated that, at present, there is not enough evidence to recommend treating this population of patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".