MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040539759 · doi:10.1111/apt.12611

Commentary: what factors are important in diagnosing hepatic fibrosis?

2014· letter· en· W2040539759 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Kelley, Jordan J. Feld

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCirrhosisPortal hypertensionFibrosisVon Willebrand factorGastroenterologyInternal medicineEndothelial dysfunctionLiver biopsyLiver diseaseHepatic fibrosisPlateletPathologyBiopsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Von Willebrand factor (vWF) is released by activated endothelial cells and is a marker of endothelial dysfunction. Endothelial dysfunction is a fundamental component of increased hepatic vascular tone in cirrhotic livers.1 Previous studies have found vWF-Ag levels to correlate with Child-Pugh score, clinically significant portal hypertension and mortality.2, 3 The study conducted by Maieron et al. examined the utility of vWF-Ag as a marker of liver fibrosis. The authors compared vWF-Ag and a new VITRO score (vWF-Ag/platelets) to other non-invasive fibrosis scores (APRI, FCI, FORNS, FI, Fib-4) in patients with chronic hepatitis C, using liver biopsy as the gold standard. The vWF-Ag and VITRO score were found to be comparable in performance to the other fibrosis scores. As with most serum markers, differentiation between patients with and without cirrhosis was better than the ability to distinguish earlier stages of fibrosis, likely reflecting that endothelial dysfunction is primarily a response to, or a cause of, portal hypertension, which only occurs with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.1 Although vWF-Ag is relatively inexpensive and the score is easy to calculate, this is not a test that is routinely ordered in patients with liver disease, meaning that it may add cost and inconvenience compared to simple fibrosis scores like APRI or FIB-4, which are composed of routine lab values. However, vWF-Ag may provide additional prognostic information, such as the presence of significant portal hypertension and may even predict mortality, which has been less clearly associated with components of the other scores.2, 3 This will clearly require further validation, but would provide a rationale for using this test over others. This study has demonstrated that measurement of vWF-Ag, and particularly the VITRO score, provides yet another non-invasive way to fairly reliably exclude or diagnose cirrhosis. Similar to the other fibrosis scores, its performance would likely improve when combined with another fibrosis measurement, such as transient elastography, which was not performed in this study.4 Ultimately, this test will probably not stand out as a major advance on its own, but it is an additional tool and may well prove to be the ‘factor’ that predicts not only cirrhosis but also clinical outcomes. Declaration of personal and funding interests: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0060.001
Research integrity0.0410.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.019

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207