Which patients with primary biliary cirrhosis or primary sclerosing cholangitis should undergo endoscopic screening for oesophageal varices detection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines from an AASLD Single Topic Symposium suggest that patients with cirrhosis, including those with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) or primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), should be screened for oesophageal varices when the platelet count is <140,000/mm3. AIM: To determine the validity of these guidelines in clinical practice in patients with PBC or PSC. METHODS: Retrospective review of individuals undergoing screening upper endoscopy for oesophageal varices at a single centre. Oesophageal varices were reported as being present or absent. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients with chronic liver disease, including 86 patients with PBC (n=79) or PSC (n=7), 104 patients with chronic viral hepatitis, and 45 with non-alcoholic cirrhosis of differing aetiologies, underwent a single screening endoscopy between 1996 and 2001. Oesophageal varices were detected in 26 (30%) of the PBC/PSC group, 38 (37%) of the viral hepatitis group, and 21 (47%) of the "other" group. Applying multiple logistic regression analysis to the data in the group with PBC/PSC, platelets <200,000/mm3 (odds ratio (OR) 5.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.79-19.23)), albumin <40 g/l (OR 6.02 (95% CI 1.78-20.41)), and serum bilirubin >20 micromol/l (OR 3.66 (95% CI 1.07-12.47)) were shown to be independent risk factors for oesophageal varices. Prothrombin time was unhelpful. The values at these cut offs were not useful in predicting oesophageal varices in the other groups. CONCLUSION: We conclude that current guidelines recommended by the AASLD Single Topic symposium are invalid in our cohort of patients with PBC and PSC. Patients with a platelet count <200,000/mm3, an albumin level <40 g/l, and a bilirubin level >20 micromol/l should be screened for oesophageal varices.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".