ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Construction and validation of a predictive model for HBsAg loss in chronic hepatitis B patients treated with Peg-IFNα-2b.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss is the ideal treatment endpoint for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Pegylated interferon alfa-2b (Peg-IFNα-2b) is currently the preferred drug for achieving HBsAg loss, but its efficacy varies significantly among different patients. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective real-world study enrolled CHB patients treated with Peg-IFNα-2b for ≥48 weeks. Patients were divided into cured and uncured groups based on week-48 HBsAg status and randomly assigned to training and validation cohorts (7:3). Logistic regression identified independent predictors of HBsAg loss and constructed a predictive model. The model's discriminative ability, calibration, and clinical applicability were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, calibration curves, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and decision analysis curve (DCA) analysis. Results: Among 859 patients, 133 (15.5%) achieved HBsAg loss at week 48. Multivariate analysis identified combination therapy with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) (OR = 3.83), lower baseline HBsAg (OR = 0.32), lower baseline aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (OR = 0.97), and entecavir (ETV) regimen (OR = 0.33) as independent predictors. The model demonstrated strong discrimination and calibration performance, with AUCs of 0.884 in the training cohort and 0.866 in the validation cohort. Logit(P)=-0.87-1.12*HBsAg(log10)+1.34*group-0.03*AST-1.1×ETV. Note: group (1=no combination with TCM, 2=combination with TCM), ETV (0=non-ETV antiviral regimen, 1=ETV antiviral regimen). Conclusion: The combination of TCM therapy, low baseline HBsAg levels, lower baseline AST levels, and non-ETV antiviral regimens were significant predictors of HBsAg loss at week 48 in CHB patients receiving 48-week Peg-IFNα-2b treatment. The predictive model we developed demonstrated high accuracy and potential clinical utility. Key points: This study focused on the establishment and validation of a clinical prediction model for HBsAg loss based on a large two-center cohort including 859 patients with CHB. The model was constructed using rigorous statistical methods and further evaluated through both internal and external validation. The results demonstrated good discrimination, calibration, and clinical net benefit, suggesting that the model may serve as a practical tool to help clinicians estimate the probability of HBsAg loss and facilitate individualized antiviral treatment strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.