De novo hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive, core antibody (anti-HBc)-negative, hepatitis B virus infection post-liver transplant from an anti-HBc, HBsAg-negative donor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver transplant donors and recipients are routinely screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection by measuring the levels of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core (anti-HBc) antibodies. Organs are accepted from donors who are HB-negative, and increased monitoring is required for organs from donors considered at increased risk. Transplant recipients are vaccinated if there is no sign of previous infection or immunity and monitored for reactivation in case of previous HBV infection. In cases where both the donor and the recipient are HBV-negative, no antiviral prophylaxis is used post transplant. This report describes a case of an HBV-immunized, anti-HBc-negative patient who underwent an orthotopic liver transplant from an anti-HBc-negative donor. The patient did not receive post-transplant antiviral prophylaxis due to mutual anti-HBc-seronegative status. However, the recipient developed HBV infection with isolated HBsAg and persistently negative anti-HBc. Mutations in the core/pre-core regions of the HBV gene were not implicated for unique serology in this case. Immunosuppression post liver transplant is the likely etiology for isolated HBsAg seroconversion despite significantly elevated HBV DNA. Our experience suggests that HBV DNA screening of liver transplant donors and recipients, in addition to HBV DNA monitoring of recipients, may reduce the risk of transplant-associated HBV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".