Hepatitis B virus reactivation in hepatitis B core antibody positive lung transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Solid organ transplant recipients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection are at risk for reactivation; however, most of the studies have focused on kidney transplant recipients and have short to intermediate term follow-up. Risk factors for reactivation are also uncertain, with some studies suggesting surface antibody (anti-HBs) may be protective. Methods: This retrospective single-center study aimed to assess the risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr) in lung transplant recipients with prior HBV infection as well as the value of anti-HBs titers in predicting HBVr. Surface antigen (HBsAg) negative, core antibody (anti-hepatitis B core (HBc)) positive adult lung and heart-lung solid organ transplant recipients from 2005 to 2019 were included. The primary outcome was HBVr after transplant, defined as seroreversion to HBsAg positivity. The secondary outcome compared anti-HBs titers at transplant and at post-transplant month 12. Results: The cohort included 38 lung and heart-lung recipients with anti-HBc positive, HBsAg negative pretransplant serology. Reactivation occurred in 3 of 38 (8%) at 49, 69, and 94 months post transplant. Two (5% of cohort) subjects died as a consequence of HBVr. Two of the 3 HBVr patients had anti-HBs titers >10 IU/ml at transplant and 1 had anti-HBs >100 IU/ml at time of HBV reactivation. We did not find a statistically significant decrease in anti-HBs titers 1 year after transplant in subjects with baseline anti-HBs >10 IU/ml. Conclusions: The prolonged time to reactivation highlights the lifelong risk. The 8% rate of reactivation and 5% mortality support a preferred strategy of indefinite HBV antiviral prophylaxis over monitoring in anti-HBc positive lung recipients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".