IgG4 Related disease – a retrospective descriptive study highlighting Canadian experiences in diagnosis and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Appreciating the utility of published diagnostic criteria for autoimmune pancreatitis, when compared to the characteristics of patients clinically managed as having disease, informs and refines ongoing clinical practice. METHODS: Comparative retrospective descriptive evaluation of patients with autoimmune pancreatitis including dedicated radiology review. RESULTS: 66 subjects with radiographic OR clinical features of autoimmune pancreatitis were initially identifiable (Male: n = 50), with 55 confirmed for evaluation. The most common presentation included pain (67%), weight loss (65%), and jaundice (62%). Diffuse enlargement of the pancreas was evident in 38%, whilst multifocal, focal, or atrophic changes were seen in 7%, 33% and 9% respectively. 13% had no pancreatic parenchymal involvement. Peripheral rim enhancement was seen in 23 patients (42%). Where discernible, disease was a) Sclerosing pancreatitis and cholangitis, n = 21; b) Sclerosing cholangitis, n = 9; c) Sclerosing pancreatitis, n = 4; d) Sclerosing pancreatitis and cholangitis with pancreatic pseudotumour, n = 7; e) Sclerosing cholangitis with hepatic pseudotumour, n = 3; f) Sclerosing pancreatitis with pancreatic pseudotumour, n = 1. 56% of the patients had systemic manifestations and the median serum IgG4 at diagnosis was 5.12 g/L. The Korean criteria identified most patients (82%) compared to HISORt (55%) or the Japan Pancreas Society (56%). The majority (HISORt 60%; Japan Pancreas Society 55%; Korean 58%) met diagnostic criterion by radiological findings and elevated serum IgG4. Treatment and response did not differ when stratified by diagnostic criteria. CONCLUSION: Our descriptive and retrospective dataset confirms that in non-expert practice settings, autoimmune pancreatitis scoring systems with a focus on radiology and serology capture most patients who are clinically felt to have disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".