The impact of HBV infection on clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The impact of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection on clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to explore this impact. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CKNI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and Wan Fang database for articles between 1 January 2020 and 1 February 2023. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment to evaluate the study’s quality. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed utilising the rates of severe/critical illness and death in COVID-19 patients with and without HBV infection. Eighteen studies with a total of 40,502 participants met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that compared to those without HBV infection, COVID-19 patients with HBV were at increased risk of mortality (OR = 1.65, I2 = 58%, and 95% CI 1.08–2.53) and severity (OR = 1.90, I2 = 44%, and 95% CI 1.62–2.24). The region and gender may influence the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with HBV infection, but it requires more global data to confirm. In conclusion, HBV infection is significantly linked to an increased risk of severity and mortality in COVID-19.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".