MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S1454 Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Hepatitis Delta Virus (HDV) Infected Individuals in British Columbia

2023· article· en· W4387749552 on OpenAlexaffabout
Valeriya O. Zaborska, Alnoor Ramji, Hin Hin Ko, Edward Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society of Intestinal ResearchUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatitis D virusHepatitis DInternal medicineHBsAgHepatocellular carcinomaGastroenterologyHepatitis B virusCirrhosisVirologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Globally, HDV is reported in 4.5-13% of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. HDV and HBV co-infection is associated with progression to cirrhosis and higher risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HDV prevalence in Canada is not fully elucidated. The purpose of the study was to describe the prevalence and clinical characteristics of HDV infection in CHB patients in a tertiary care centre. Methods: Retrospective study of HBsAg-positive patients >18 years of age tested for HDV Ab between April 2013 and October 2022. Data collected included HDV Ab status, patient demographics, comorbidities, alcohol use, fibrosis stage, and therapies utilized. Results: Among 663 HBsAg-positive patients tested for HDV Ab,10/663 (1.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-2.44) were HDV-Ab (+), with 8/10 (80%, 95% CI 0.55-1.05) of those confirmed HDV RNA(+). Average age of HDV patients was 57.8 (95% CI 52.7- 62.9) years, similar to HBV patients. Compared to HBV mono-infected patients, HBV-HDV co-infected patients were more likely to be male (90.0% vs 57.6%; P = 0.04), have decompensated liver disease (30.0% vs 1.4%; P < 0.0001) and less likely to be Asian (50.0% vs 80.9%; P = 0.014). One HBV-HDV co-infected patient was also HIV/HCV co-infected, and 2 had cleared HCV. One HDV patient had a known history of IVDU (10%, 95% CI 0.09 – 0.28). Mean ALT in HDV patients was 55.9, vs 34.3 in HBV mono group (P = 0.0508). 50% of HDV patients consumed any lifetime alcohol compared to 31.9% of HBV mono-infected patients (P = 0.22). HDV patients were more likely to have liver stiffness measurements >9.0 kPa 30% vs 8.9%, P = 0.02), and equally likely to have HCC 10% vs 2.5% (P = 0.13). Conclusion: The prevalence of HDV positivity in CHB patients in this tertiary care centre was 1.5%. This was less than a previously noted 4.8% prevalence of HDV positivity amongst HBsAg-positive patients enrolled in in the Canadian HBV Network between 2011-2019. Persons with HDV were more likely to be male, and have decompensated liver disease and less likely to be Asian than those with HBV mono-infection. Further studies to understand the burden of disease in other regions are needed. Table 1. - Comparison of additional demographics, hepatic outcomes, laboratory values, antiviral treatment experience, and co-morbidities in HBV mono-infected individuals (n = 653) compared with HDV–HBV co-infected individuals (n = 10) HDV-HBV co-infected (n = 10) HBV mono-infected (n = 653) P-value Ethnicity Asian 50% (5/10) 81% (529/653) 0.014 Caucasian 30% (3/10) 8.27% (54/653) 0.015 Middle Eastern 20% (2/10) 3.06% (20/653) 0.003 East Asian 0% 2.45% (16/653) 0.62 Black/African/Caribbean 0% 3.83% (25/653) 0.53 Hispanic 0% 1.38% (9/653) 0.71 BMI 26.8 (95% CI 24.26-29.34, n = 7) 24.17 (95% CI 23.8-24.53, n = 456) 0.08 Hepatic Outcomes Cirrhosis 20% (2/10) 3.68% (24/653) 0.008 Fatty Liver/Steatosis > = S1 57.14% (4/7) 53.89% (291/540) 0.86 Labs* GFR 80.8 (95% CI 65.35-96.25, n = 10) 90.58 (95% CI 8.94-92.22, n = 650) 0.15 HBeAb+ 25% (2/8) 22.17% (100/451) 0.85 HBV DNA Detectable 20% (2/10) 47.3% (307/649) 0.09 Current Treatment Antiviral therapy against HBV 60% (6/10) 50.08% (327/653) 0.53 Interferon 0% 0.15% (1/653) 0.9 Lamivudine 10% (1/10) 6.12% (40/653) 0.61 Tenofovir (TDF or TAF) 50% (5/10) 34.9% (228/653) 0.32 Entecavir 0% 7.5% (49/653) 0.37 Nucleos(t)ide inhibitor 0% 0.15% (1/653) 0.9 Comorbidities Diabetes 10% (1/10) 7.5% (49/653) 0.77 Hypertension 10% (1/10) 17.76% (116/653) 0.52 Dyslipidemia 0% 11.18% (73/653) 0.26 Continuous data are presented as mean (95% CI, n known). Categorical data are presented as mean % (n/n known). T tests were used for continuous data and chi-square tests were used for categorical data. Values of P < 0.05 are designated as significant.*Labs defined as most recent as of May 2023.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207