BENEFIT OF TRANSPLANTATION IN PRIMARY BILIARY CIRRHOSIS BETWEEN 1985-1997
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the 1980s, primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) patients were shown to benefit from transplantation when compared to a mathematical model. This study, using the same model, evaluates a cohort of patients who underwent transplantation in the late 1980s and early 1990s before and after the introduction of therapy with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). METHODS: All 73 PBC patients transplanted at the University of Toronto between 1985 and 1997 were included in the study. Actual survival posttransplantation, calculated with the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator, was compared to predicted survival without transplantation, as determined by the Mayo model. The effect of UDCA therapy on outcome was studied by dividing the cohort into those transplanted before and after 1992, the year in which UDCA use for PBC was introduced. RESULTS: At 2 years posttransplant, predicted survival without transplant was 55% whereas actual survival was 79%. At 7 years posttransplant, these figures were 22% and 68%, respectively (P=3 x 10(-8)). There was a nonsignificant trend towards improved survival in those transplanted during the UDCA era compared to those transplanted in the pre-UDCA era. CONCLUSIONS: Liver transplantation remains extremely beneficial for patients with end-stage PBC. There was no difference in outcome after liver transplantation in those transplanted during the UDCA era when compared to their pre-UDCA counterparts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".