Clinical Outcomes and Quantitative HBV Surface Antigen Levels in Diverse Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in Canada : A Retrospective Real-World Study of CHB in Canada (REVEAL-CANADA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss is associated with improved clinical outcomes for individuals with chronic hepatitis B (CHB); however, the effects of varying HBsAg levels on clinical outcomes in diverse cohorts are understudied. Methods: In this cross-sectional, multicentre, retrospective study, the data on adult subjects enrolled in the Canadian HBV Network with CHB seen from 1 January 2012 to 30 January 2021 with the treatment and virologic data within 1 year of HBsAg testing were analyzed. Patients were tested for HBsAg using qualitative (for HBsAg-negative samples) and/or commercial quantitative assays. Fibrosis or hepatic necroinflammation was determined by the liver stiffness measurement (LSM). The baseline data were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared by using univariable/multivariable analyses. Results: This study included 844 CHB patients, with a median age of 49.6 years (IQR 40.1–60.5), and 37% were female. In total, 751 patients (78.6%) had known ethnicity data, and 76.7% self-reported as Asian, 11.4% as Black, 6.8% as White, and 4.8% as other. Among the 844 patients, 237 (28.0%) were HBsAg (−) (1000 IU/mL. Overall, 80% (682) had known HBeAg status at the last follow-up, and the majority (87.0%) were HBeAg-negative. In addition, 54% (461/844) had prior antiviral therapy, 19.7% of which (16.3, 23.7, n = 91) were HBsAg (−). The treated patients had a lower risk of cirrhosis (16.46, 95% CI 1.89–143.39, p = 0.01) or HCC (8.23, 95% CI 1.01–67.39, p = 0.05) than the untreated patients. A lower proportion of the HBsAg-loss group had cirrhosis (5.7% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.021) and HCC (0.9% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.001). Conclusion: In this retrospective, ethnically diverse cohort study, CHB patients who received antiviral therapy and/or had HBsAg loss were less likely to develop cirrhosis and HCC, confirming the results of the studies in less diverse cohorts. No association was found between the qHBsAg level and fibrosis determined with LSM. Individuals who achieved HBsAg loss had low-level qHBsAg within 1 year of seroclearance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".