Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Gastroenterological Association (2002), Canadian Medical Association (2005), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006) released guidelines to screen patients with mild elevations of liver enzymes for hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Mildly elevated liver enzymes were defined as less than five times the upper limit of normal, but above the normal reference range. The rationale for this recommendation was based on many factors including cost effectiveness, lab variation, and ultimately, for better patient care.Chronic hepatitis B and C have values of transaminases that fluctuate between normal and mildly abnormal. Screening patients with even mild elevations of transaminases allows many chronic hepatitis patients to be diagnosed early in the course of their disease. Diagnosing these patients early in their disease course leads to better treatment response, decreased progression to cirrhosis, lower viral loads leading to decreased incidence of extrahepatic manifestations, prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma, and decreased likelihood of liver transplantation.There are organizations which recommend discontinuing hepatotoxic medications such as acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and reevaluating the patient in three months. However, this recommendation misses a number of hepatitis patients for the reasons aforementioned. The obesity epidemic has clouded the diagnosis of hepatitis B/C as patients that have obesity, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome are not being screened due the presumptive diagnosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.Not screening patients in the setting of obesity is not cost-effective and also leads to increased morbidity, as we will discuss in this manuscript. Additionally, it has been proven in the literature that it is more cost-effective to screen for hepatitis B/C in high-prevalence areas, than to reassess the patient months later, and potentially miss a diagnosis of hepatitis B/C. The overall goal of this study is to increase screening awareness of patients with mild transaminitis elevations through publication in order to diagnose patients with hepatitis B and C prior to the development of chronic liver disease.
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 | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".