Prognostic Factors and Survival in Patients with Hereditary Hemochromatosis and Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The survival of treated, noncirrhotic patients with hereditary hemochromatosis is similar to that of the general population. Less is known about the outcome of cirrhotic hereditary hemochromatosis patients. The present study evaluated the survival of patients with hereditary hemochromatosis and cirrhosis. METHODS: From an established hereditary hemochromatosis database, all cirrhotic patients diagnosed from January 1972 to August 2004 were identified. Factors associated with survival were determined using univariate and multivariate regression. Survival differences were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier life table method. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were identified. Sixty patients had genetic testing, 52 patients (87%) were C282Y homozygotes. Median follow-up was 9.2 years (range 0 to 30 years). Nineteen patients (20%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma, one of whom was still living following transplantation. Cumulative survival for all patients was 88% at one year, 69% at five years and 56% at 20 years. Factors associated with death on multivariate analysis included advanced Child-Pugh score and hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were older at the time of diagnosis of cirrhosis (mean age 61 and 54.6 years, respectively; P=0.03). The mean age at the time of diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma was 70 years (range 48 to 79 years). No other differences were found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hereditary hemochromatosis and cirrhosis are at significant risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma. These patients are older when diagnosed with carcinoma and may have poorer survival following transplantation than patients with other causes of liver disease. Early diagnosis and treatment of hereditary hemochromatosis by preventing the development of cirrhosis may reduce the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the future.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".