<b>Appendix </b>for Risk factors for viral hepatitis in pulmonary tuberculosis patients undergoing treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver injury in tuberculosis patients, associated with noncompliance to treatment, is further exacerbated by viral hepatitis, which not only directly harms the liver but also increases susceptibility to drug-induced liver injury. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the associated risk factors for viral hepatitis in tuberculosis patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis adhere to the PRISMA 2020 statement, and the protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023477241). Screening and selection of articles were carried out according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, utilizing journal databases including Embase, Medline, Scopus, and ProQuest, in November 2023. Baseline characteristic and patient-related risk factor from each included study were extracted, followed by a meta-analysis of factors that potentially exhibit significance, with the heterogeneities also being analyzed. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was then employed to assess the quality of each included study. [DD1] [DD2] From 21 included studies out of 6,415 identified records, 12 potential risk factors for hepatitis B and 15 for hepatitis C were subjected to meta-analysis. Some key risk factors include HIV (OR 3.42 [2.19–5.34] and 6.99 [5.09–9.61] for hepatitis B and C, respectively, p < 0.01), smoking (OR 1.55 [1.19–2.02] and 3.06 [1.63–5.75] for hepatitis B and C, respectively, p < 0.01), and alcohol consumption (OR 2.38 [1.06–5.37] and 4.32 [2.76–6.78] for hepatitis B and C, respectively, p < 0.05). Furthermore, meta-analysis indicated that other significant risk factors for hepatitis B and/or C include injecting and non-injecting drug use, multiple sexual partners, tattooing, ear-nose piercing, blood transfusion, dental interventions, homelessness, incarceration, living with prisoners, sexually transmitted diseases, and diabetes mellitus . In conclusion, patients with tuberculosis who have risk factors such as smoking, HIV, or alcohol consumption should be screened for hepatitis B and C to prevent liver injury.
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 | 0.004 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.260 | 0.009 |
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".