Extrahepatic Anomalies in Infants With Biliary Atresia: Results of a Large Prospective North American Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The etiology of biliary atresia (BA) is unknown. Given that patterns of anomalies might provide etiopathogenetic clues, we used data from the North American Childhood Liver Disease Research and Education Network to analyze patterns of anomalies in infants with BA. In all, 289 infants who were enrolled in the prospective database prior to surgery at any of 15 participating centers were evaluated. Group 1 was nonsyndromic, isolated BA (without major malformations) (n = 242, 84%), Group 2 was BA and at least one malformation considered major as defined by the National Birth Defects Prevention Study but without laterality defects (n = 17, 6%). Group 3 was syndromic, with laterality defects (n = 30, 10%). In the population as a whole, anomalies (either major or minor) were most prevalent in the cardiovascular (16%) and gastrointestinal (14%) systems. Group 3 patients accounted for the majority of subjects with cardiac, gastrointestinal, and splenic anomalies. Group 2 subjects also frequently displayed cardiovascular (71%) and gastrointestinal (24%) anomalies; interestingly, this group had genitourinary anomalies more frequently (47%) compared to Group 3 subjects (10%). CONCLUSION: This study identified a group of BA (Group 2) that differed from the classical syndromic and nonsyndromic groups and that was defined by multiple malformations without laterality defects. Careful phenotyping of the patterns of anomalies may be critical to the interpretation of both genetic and environmental risk factors associated with BA, allowing new insight into pathogenesis and/or outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".