Hepatocellular Telomere Length in Biliary Atresia Measured by Q‐FISH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation for biliary atresia is indicated whenever a Kasai portoenterostomy is considered unfeasible. However, the timing of liver transplantation in biliary atresia has not been precisely defined. Excessive shortening of hepatocellular telomeres may occur in patients with biliary atresia, and therefore, telomere length could be a predictor of hepatocellular reserve capacity. METHODS: Hepatic tissues were obtained from 20 patients with biliary atresia who underwent LT and 10 age-matched autopsied individuals (mean age, 1.7 and 1.2 years, respectively). Telomere lengths were measured by Southern blotting and quantitative fluorescence in situ hybridization using the normalized telomere-centromere ratio. The correlation between the normalized telomere-centromere ratio for the hepatocytes in biliary atresia and the pediatric end-stage liver disease score was analyzed. RESULTS: The median terminal restriction fragment length of the hepatic tissues in biliary atresia was not significantly different from that of the control (p = 0.425), whereas the median normalized telomere-centromere ratio of hepatocytes in biliary atresia was significantly smaller than that of the control (p < 0.001). Regression analysis demonstrated a negative correlation of the normalized telomere-centromere ratio with the pediatric end-stage liver disease score in biliary atresia (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Telomere length analysis using quantitative fluorescence in situ hybridization could be an objective indicator of hepatocellular reserve capacity in patients with biliary atresia, and excessive telomere shortening supports the early implementation of liver transplantation.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".