Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Cirrhosis is widely regarded as being irreversible. Recent studies have demonstrated that fibrosis may decrease with time in humans and experimental animals if the disease activity becomes quiescent. The histologic appearance of regressing cirrhosis in the human has not been described in detail. OBJECTIVES: To define histologic parameters that indicate regression of cirrhosis and to provide an interpretation of how regression occurs from a histologic point of view. DESIGN: A patient who underwent a series of biopsies that showed apparent regression of hepatitis B cirrhosis is presented. In addition, 52 livers removed at transplantation having cirrhosis or incomplete septal cirrhosis were graded for histologic parameters that suggest progression or regression of fibrosis. Progression parameters were steatohepatitis, inflammation, bridging necrosis, and piecemeal necrosis. The regression parameters (collectively called the hepatic repair complex) were delicate perforated septa, isolated thick collagen fibers, delicate periportal fibrous spikes, portal tract remnants, hepatic vein remnants with prolapsed hepatocytes, hepatocytes within portal tracts or splitting septa, minute regenerative nodules, and aberrant parenchymal veins. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Regression parameters were found in all livers and were prominent in the majority. Livers with micronodular cirrhosis, macronodular cirrhosis, and incomplete septal cirrhosis demonstrate a histologic continuum. A continuum of regressive changes was also seen within individual livers. These appearances allow one to understand visually how fibrous regions of hepatic parenchyma can be returned toward a normal appearance. Many examples of incomplete septal cirrhosis could be the product of regressed cirrhosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".