Autoimmune Hepatitis: Effect of Symptoms and Cirrhosis on Natural History and Outcome *
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the natural history of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) has been characterized, little is known about patients who present asymptomatically. Consequently, whether they require immunosuppressive therapy with its associated complications is unclear. To compare the natural history of asymptomatic AIH with symptomatic AIH, a large cohort of patients from a single center was examined. All patients with a clinical diagnosis of AIH were reassessed using the revised criteria of the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group. Liver histology, response to therapy, and survival were assessed. Patients asymptomatic at presentation (n = 31) had lower serum aminotransferase, bilirubin, and immunoglobulin G (IgG) values at baseline. Half of the asymptomatic patients received no therapy, and their survival was no different from that of the total cohort. Ten-year survival was 80.0% (62.5%-97.5%) in the asymptomatic group and 83.8% (75.1%-92.6%) in the symptomatic patients (P = NS). Survival to liver-related endpoints at 10 years was similar in both groups: 89.5% (75.7%-100%) asymptomatic and 83.8% (75.1%-92.6%) symptomatic patients (P = NS). Patients with cirrhosis at baseline had poorer 10-year survival (61.9% [CI 44.9%-78.9%]) than those without cirrhosis at presentation (94.0% [CI 87.4%-100%]) (P = .003) regardless of whether they presented with symptoms or whether they received immunosuppressive therapy. In conclusion, patients with AIH who are asymptomatic at presentation have a good prognosis and may not require immunosuppressive therapy. Cirrhosis on initial liver biopsy portends a poor prognosis in all patients with 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".