PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10622564

Diagnostic tests for hepatitis C.

J M Pawlotsky
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Two categories of virological assays are in practice used for the diagnosis and management of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, including serological and molecular biology-based assays. Serological assays include: screening tests based on enzyme immunoassays (EIAs); supplemental "analytical" assays based on immunoblot testing; and serological assays detecting genotype-specific antibodies for the serological determination of HCV genotype, so-called "serotyping" assays. Molecular assays include: qualitative assays, detecting HCV RNA in body fluids; quantitative assays measuring HCV viral load, a parameter that estimates the level of HCV replication in the liver; and tests analyzing the sequence of HCV genomes (genotyping assays).

Explore related subjects

GenotypeHepacivirusHepatitis CHepatitis C AntibodiesHumansRNA, ViralJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J M Pawlotsky. 1999. Diagnostic tests for hepatitis C.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-8278(99)80378-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data.

Survival traits and selective genotyping datasets are typically not normally distributed, thus common models used to identify QTL may not be statistically appropriate for their analysis. The objective of the present study was to compare models for identification of QTL associated with survival traits, in particular when combined with selective genotyping. Data were simulated to model the survival distribution of a population of chickens challenged with Marek disease virus. Cox proportional hazards (CPH), linear regression (LR), and Weibull models were compared for their appropriateness to analyze the data, ability to identify associations of marker alleles with survival, and estimation of effects when all individuals were genotyped (full genotyping) and when selective genotyping was used. Little difference in power was found between the CPH and the LR model for low censoring cases for both full and selective genotyping. The simulated data were not transformed to follow a Weibull distribution and, as a result, the Weibull model generally resulted in less power than the other two models and overestimated effects. Effect estimates from LR and CPH were unbiased when all individuals were genotyped, but overestimated when selective genotyping was used. Thus, LR is preferred for analyzing survival data when the amount of censoring is low because of ease of implementation and interpretation. Including phenotypic data of non-genotyped individuals in selective genotyping analysis increased power, but resulted in LR having an inflated false positive rate, and therefore the CPH model is preferred for this scenario, although transformation of the data may also make the Weibull model appropriate for this case. The results from the research presented herein are directly applicable to interval mapping analyses.

Genotype↗