Antimitochondrial antibody profiles: are they valid prognostic indicators in primary biliary cirrhosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Retrospective studies have reported that subtypes of antimitochondrial antibodies (AMAs) discriminate between a benign and a progressive course in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). Four AMA profiles (A-D) were defined: profiles A and B associated with a benign course and C and D with a progressive course. We aimed to confirm whether AMA profiles predict prognosis in a large sample of North American patients with PBC. METHODS: Stored pretreatment sera from patients with PBC from two centers were tested for AMA profiles using standard techniques. Proportions of patients in each profile group reaching the endpoints of liver transplantation or death from liver disease were compared. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed comparing AMA profiles. RESULTS: All 472 patients studied had AMA positive, biopsy-confirmed PBC. Mean age at diagnosis was 53 yr, 90% were female, mean follow-up was 7.6 yr (range = 0.5-23), and 51% received ursodeoxycholic acid for >6 months. Profile A was not detected; 16.7% had profile B; 51.1%, profile C; and 32.2%, profile D. Duration of follow-up was comparable among the different profile groups. The proportions of patients reaching endpoints of death from liver disease or transplantation did not differ among the AMA profiles. No difference in the Kaplan-Meier curves between the different profile groups was observed (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: AMA profiles do not predict prognosis in patients with PBC.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".