AASLD IDSA Practice Guideline on treatment of chronic hepatitis B
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Accumulating data related to prevention, surveillance and treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) provided the impetus for this updated guideline, using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. METHODS: The guideline was developed in compliance with the National Academy of Medicine standards. The guideline panel developed structured questions following the Population, Intervention Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework. The panel addressed 6 PICO questions covering prevention (maternal to infant transmission and horizontal transmission), surveillance for liver cancer (among hepatitis B surface antigen positive (HBsAg) persons co-infected with hepatitis C virus, hepatitis D virus and/or human immunodeficiency viruses and after HBsAg loss) and treatment (HBsAg positive persons in immune-tolerant or indeterminate phases as well as withdrawal of antiviral therapy), providing evidence-based recommendations on these topics. Four systematic reviews of the literature were conducted, and two existing systematic reviews were utilized to support the recommendations in this practice guideline. CONCLUSIONS: This evidence-based guideline provides updated recommendations to optimize the care of persons with CHB.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".