Portal hypertension in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC): A reversible condition? Yes, but not in all UDCA treated patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portal hypertension is not a rare complication of PBC, but there are no useful clinical predictors of its severity. In fact, in PBC patients, the evaluation of portal hypertension needs a direct access to the portal vein in order to measure the real porto-hepatic gradient (PHG), mainly because of a possible pre-sinusoidal component. The severity of portal hypertension, as measured by the PHG using a thin needle, correlated significantly with the long-term survival of PBC patients, but the initial Mayo score remained the best predictor of survival. In addition to the well-known effects on biological parameters, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) treatment has been associated with a stabilization or improvement of portal hypertension but this effect was not observed in all patients: "responders" and "non-responders" to the UDCA could be identified according to changes in PHG and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels observed 2 years after UDCA therapy and had significantly different long-term survivals. This notion of "responders" and "non-responders" is new and may well explain the conflicting data found in the literature concerning the effects of UDCA in PBC patients as reported in various clinical trials. These findings are of interest when considering the emerging non-invasive methods aimed at evaluating liver fibrosis, particularly elastography that may prove useful in the indirect assessment of portal hypertension in the near future, therefore avoiding the need for the invasive measurement of the PHG.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".