Concomitant nonalcoholic fatty liver disease does not alter the activity, severity or course of primary biliary cholangitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) on the natural history of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) has yet to be described. The aim of this study was to document the activity, severity and progression of PBC in patients with concomitant NAFLD and compare the findings to those with PBC alone. METHODS: Disease activity was assessed by serum liver enzyme levels; severity, by Fib-4 scores and percent of patients with APRI >1.5; and progression, by changes in Fib-4 and prevalence of APRI >1.5 during follow-up. RESULTS: The study populations consisted of 168 PBC alone and 68 PBC/NAFLD patients. The mean ages and gender distributions of the two cohorts were similar. At presentation, PBC alone patients had greater disease activity (higher serum ALP and GGT values, P = .003 and 0.01, respectively) and advanced disease (higher Fib-4 (P = .04) scores) than PBC/NAFLD patients. Although the prevalence of APRI >1.5 was also higher in PBC alone (11.1%) vs PBC/NAFLD (4.7%) patients, the difference was not significant (P = .16). During mean follow-up of 6.7 ± 5.5 (PBC alone) and 6.4 ± 4.4 (PBC/NAFLD) years (ranges: 0.5-21 years) annual increases in Fib-4 and prevalence of ≥ APRI 1.5 were greater in PBC alone patients but the differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this retrospective, single centre study suggest that the activity, severity and progression of PBC are not adversely affected by concomitant NAFLD.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".