Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1950, Waldenström was the first to describe a chronic form of hepatitis in young women. Subsequently, the disease was found to be associated with other autoimmune syndromes and was later termed "lupoid hepatitis" because of the presence of antinuclear antibodies. In 1965, it became designated by Mackay et al. as "autoimmune hepatitis" at an international meeting, at which the general concept of autoimmunity was endorsed by the scientific community. In the early 1960s and 1970s, the value of immunosuppressive therapy with glucocorticoids and/or azathioprine was well documented in several studies. The original association of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and HLA alleles, which has remarkably stood the test of time, was published in 1972. In the 1970s and 1980s, several autoantibodies were identified in patients with autoimmune hepatitis directed against proteins of the endoplasmatic reticulum expressed in liver and kidney and against soluble liver antigens. Subsequently, the molecular targets of these antibodies were identified and more precisely characterized. In the last two decades many additional pieces of the AIH puzzle have been collected leading to the identification of additional antibodies and genes associated with AIH and to the emergence of new therapeutic agents. Meanwhile, the immunoserological and genetic heterogeneity of AIH is well established and it has become obvious that clinical manifestations, disease behavior, and treatment outcome may vary by racial groups, geographical regions and genetic predisposition. Currently, the International Autoimmune hepatitis group is endorsing multi-center collaborative studies to more precisely define the features at disease presentation and to define prognostic indices and appropriate treatment algorithms. Given the importance of serological testing, the IAHG is also working on guidelines and procedures for more reliable and standardized testing of autoantibodies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".