Identifying gaps in the treatment of hepatitis C in patients co-infected with HIV in Edmonton, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With the availability of direct-acting antivirals, Hepatitis C (HCV) is now considered a treatable disease. Patients who are co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HCV represent an ideal patient population to treat for HCV, as (1) patients are routinely taking medication for HIV, and therefore would be able to complete HCV drug regimens, and (2) HIV infection has been shown to increase HCV disease progression. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the occurrence of HCV co-infection among HIV patients in our provincial cohort, determine whether they received treatment for HCV, and identify currently viremic patients who can be linked to care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HCV laboratory testing data (HCV antibody and HCV RNA) and HCV medication dispensation data was collected for all HIV positive patients. Current and previous HCV infection and treatment was assessed. Chart reviews were conducted for HCV viremic patients to assess their HIV care and social determinants. RESULTS: Of the 2417 HIV positive patients, 392 (16.2%) were identified as being co-infected with HCV. 198 (50.5%) of the HIV-HCV co-infected patients received HCV treatment and 232 (59.2%) were not viremic on the most recent HCV RNA test. 99 (69.2%) had a suppressed HIV infection suggesting they are active in their HIV care and good candidates for HCV treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of direct-acting antivirals, many patients who are co-infected with HIV and HCV are not being treated for HCV. Routine surveillance of HIV-HCV co-infected patients could improve HCV treatment rates in a high-risk population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".