Patients with large‐duct primary sclerosing cholangitis and Crohn's disease have a better outcome than those with ulcerative colitis, or without <scp>IBD</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have Crohn's disease (CD). AIM: To compare PSC/CD with other PSC patients. METHODS: Retrospective study of 240 PSC patients diagnosed between 1975 and 2012 (median follow-up 12 years). Activity of PSC at diagnosis was assessed by liver biopsy, Mayo risk and ERC scores. Survival without liver transplantation, number of transplantations and liver-related death were endpoints. RESULTS: Sixty-three per cent of patients had IBD: 105 UC, 32 CD and 14 IBD unclassified (IBDu). IBD was diagnosed before PSC in 50%. The yearly development of PSC after diagnosing IBD was similar in UC, CD or IBDu. Small-duct PSC was present in 28% of PSC/CD compared to 3% of PSC/UC. Small-duct PSC had a markedly better survival than large-duct PSC: no patient developed cholangiocarcinoma or liver-related death, but colorectal cancer occurred in three patients. In large-duct PSC, a more favourable outcome was evident in patients with CD. The liver disease was less progressive: one patient underwent liver transplantation compared to 28% and liver-related deaths were absent compared to 7% in the other PSC groups. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of PSC with concomitant Crohn's disease is relatively rare, but the outcome is more benign than PSC with UC or without IBD. Approximately one-fourth has small-duct PSC. In large-duct PSC/CD, liver disease is less aggressive and the outcome is much better. The outcome of PSC patients with UC resembled that of PSC without IBD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".