Ribavirin Does Not Enhance Hepatitis B Virus Nucleotide Antiviral Activity: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is a need for effective and affordable treatments that achieve hepatitis B virus (HBV) functional cure and prevent long-term complications. The use of immune-modulators combined with HBV antivirals is a promising therapeutic strategy to achieve these goals. Based on ribavirin (RBV) monotherapy data, we hypothesized that RBV could improve virological responses when used in combination with tenofovir. Methods: In this randomized, open label, controlled pilot trial, we evaluated RBV (n=4) dosed for the initial 24 weeks of treatment versus no RBV (n=4) in tenofovir recipients dosed over 48 weeks. Results: Although well tolerated and safe in combination with tenofovir, RBV demonstrated no beneficial effects on virologic, biochemical or immunological markers of chronic HBV infection over 48 weeks of serial evaluation. Conclusions: Our data does not suggest a HBV-specific immunomodulatory effect or an impact of RBV on HBV virological and antigen suppression.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".