Applicability of the IAIHG scoring system to the diagnosis of antimitochondrial/anti‐M2 seropositive variant form of autoimmune hepatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: According to the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group (IAIHG) criteria, circulating antimitochondrial antibodies (AMA) do not support the diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). The aims of this study were to characterize a subset of patients with AIH who have AMA and antiM2 seropositivity, and to assess the applicability of the revised scoring system of the IAIHG in the diagnosis of this variant form of AIH. METHODS: Eighteen patients with AMA-AIH were enrolled and compared with 206 classical AIH and 85 primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) controls. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II alleles were determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification with sequence-specific primers, and biopsies were blindly reevaluated. RESULTS: The patients with AMA-AIH were, on average, older than patients with classical AIH and had an hepatocellular pattern of elevated liver enzymes, hypergammaglobulinemia and lower levels of cholesterol, when compared with PBC controls. There were no histological signs of PBC or overlapping forms in any AMA-AIH biopsies. The majority of patients with AMA-AIH carried HLA antigens associated with classical AIH (DRB1*03, n = 5; DRB1*04, n = 7, and DRB1*13, n = 6). Pretreatment scores classified all AMA-AIH patients with probable (n = 17) or improbable (n = 1) AIH. After treatment, only 28% of AMA-AIH patients reached scores for definite diagnosis, compared with 90.1% of AIH-1 and 96.4 AIH-2. In the AMA-AIH group, only patients who relapsed after immunosuppressive drug withdrawal could be classified with definite AIH. CONCLUSIONS: AMA-AIH shares common features with classical AIH. The diagnosis of AMA-AIH may be swayed by the IAIHG criteria, rendering questionable the applicability of the revised scoring system to this variant form of AIH.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".