Diagnosis and Management of the Overlap Syndromes of Autoimmune Hepatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autoimmune hepatitis may have cholestatic features that are outside the classical phenotype and that resemble findings in other immune-mediated liver diseases. These cholestatic phenotypes have been designated 'overlap syndromes'. OBJECTIVES: To recognize the overlap syndromes in adults and manage them appropriately. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was reviewed for published experiences from 1984 to 2013. RESULTS: Patients with autoimmune hepatitis may exhibit features of primary biliary cirrhosis (7% to 13%), primary sclerosing cholangitis (6% to 11%) or a cholestatic syndrome without other diagnostic features (5% to 11%). These mixed phenotypes may represent classical autoimmune hepatitis with atypical features, transition states in the evolution of classical cholestatic syndromes, concurrent separate diseases or pathogenically distinct disorders. The 'Paris criteria' have been endorsed for the diagnosis of the overlap syndrome with primary biliary cirrhosis, and treatment with conventional immunosuppressive therapy alone or in combination with low-dose ursodeoxycholic acid can be guided by the serum alkaline phosphatase level. The overlap syndrome with primary sclerosing cholangitis or with cholestasis without diagnostic features is commonly treated with immunosuppressive therapy and ursodeoxycholic acid. Responses are variable and commonly incomplete (20% to 100% improvement) depending on the degree of cholestasis. DISCUSSION: The overlap syndromes are clinical descriptions rather than pathological entities, and the dominant component of the disease determines its designation and therapy. Cholestatic findings in autoimmune hepatitis influence the response to immunosuppressive therapy. CONCLUSION: The overlap syndromes must be considered in patients with autoimmune hepatitis and cholestatic findings, concurrent inflammatory bowel disease or steroid-refractory 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".