Immunostaining for hepatitis B viral antigens in liver: Association with clinical, biochemical, and virologic features of disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Staining for hepatitis B viral antigens is often done in liver biopsies from patients with chronic hepatitis B, but its correlates with clinical phenotypes are not well described. METHODS: Biopsies were collected from a large cohort of adults and children with chronic hepatitis B viral infection through the Hepatitis B Research Network. Immunohistochemical staining of sections was done for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg) and then centrally read by the pathology committee. The degree of liver injury and pattern of staining were then correlated with clinical characteristics, including the clinical phenotype of hepatitis B. RESULTS: Biopsies from 467 subjects were studied, including 46 from children. Immunostaining for HBsAg was positive in 417 (90%) with scattered hepatocyte staining being the most common pattern. HBsAg staining correlated best with serum levels of HBsAg and hepatitis B viral DNA; the absence of HBsAg staining was often a prelude to loss of HBsAg from serum. HBcAg staining was positive in 225 (49%), and, while cytoplasmic staining was more frequent than nuclear staining, both nuclear and cytoplasmic positivity were often seen in the same specimen. Staining for HBcAg correlated with both level of viremia and liver injury. No biopsies from inactive carriers had stainable HBcAg, while 91% of the biopsies from those with hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B stained positively for HBcAg. CONCLUSION: Immunostaining for hepatitis B viral antigens may yield helpful insights into liver disease pathogenesis but appears to add little to commonly used serological and biochemical blood tests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".