Prognostic implications of antibodies to Ro/SSA and soluble liver antigen in type 1 autoimmune hepatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antibodies to soluble liver antigen are frequently co-expressed with antibodies to ribonucleoprotein/Sjögren's syndrome A (Ro/SSA) in autoimmune hepatitis. AIMS: Our goals were to evaluate the prognostic implications of antibodies to Ro/SSA in type 1 autoimmune hepatitis and to determine their independence from antibodies to soluble liver antigen. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-six serum samples from 170 patients were tested by enzyme immunoassays. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (38%) had antibodies to Ro52; 11 patients (6%) had antibodies to Ro60; and 27 patients had antibodies to soluble liver antigen (16%). Twenty-six patients with antibodies to Ro52 had antibodies to soluble liver antigen (40%), and 26 patients with antibodies to soluble liver antigen had antibodies to Ro52 (96%). Patients with antibodies to Ro52 and antibodies to soluble liver antigen had a higher frequency of human leucocyte antigen (HLA) DRB1(*) 03 (78 vs 50%, P=0.05) and lower occurrence of HLA DRB1(*) 04 (22 vs 57%, P=0.01) than patients with antibodies to Ro52 alone. Antibodies to Ro52 alone [hazard ratio (HR), 2.90; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-7.14, P=0.02] and antibodies to Ro52 in conjunction with antibodies to soluble liver antigen (HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.07-8.43, P=0.04) were independently associated with the development of cirrhosis and hepatic death or liver transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Antibodies to Ro52 alone and antibodies to Ro52 in conjunction with antibodies to soluble liver antigen are independently associated with a poor prognosis in type 1 autoimmune hepatitis. The prognostic implications ascribed to antibodies to soluble liver antigen may reflect their almost invariable concurrence with antibodies to Ro52.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".