Controversies and Variation in Diagnosing and Treating Children With Wilson Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Variation in care is more common in settings in which evidence-based approaches are limited. The aims of the present study were to describe consensus and variability in approaches taken by pediatric hepatologists in the management of Wilson disease (WD) in children. METHOD: International case-centered, Internet-based survey of pediatric hepatologists. Survey cases were developed by consensus of the authors and were intended to identify variation in the care of children with WD. RESULTS: One hundred eleven of 253 clinicians responded (44%). Of these, 84% of North American and 41% of European participants used guidelines published in their respective region. Although consensus existed on the first-line diagnostic tools (serum ceruloplasmin and baseline 24-hour urinary copper excretion), survey participants did not agree on how much liver copper content was required for diagnosis: 57% considered >250 μg/g dry weight to be consistent with WD, whereas 25% considered >50 μg/g to be diagnostic. Overall, 50% of practitioners perform genetic testing in all suspected cases, and 81% perform genetic testing once they know the genotype of an index patient. For initial treatment of fulminant WD, 51% of participants chose chelation and 15% chose immediate transplantation; 47% chose listing for transplantation followed by monitoring using a disease-severity score, and then carrying out transplantation only when the score reached a critical cut-off. To treat mildly affected siblings of index patients, 43% of practitioners chose zinc. Most reported that they use chelation to treat patients with hepatic dysfunction; however, 29% of North American participants chose not to use D-penicillamine as primary therapy. CONCLUSIONS: From an international perspective, pediatric hepatologists vary in the approaches they use in the care for children with WD. Regional preferences and accessibility to treatments may generate variation. Unwarranted variation, however, may also contribute to differences in outcome and should be targeted to improve quality of care.
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 | 0.072 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".