MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789266999 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.195

A194 CAN NOVEL SEROLOGICAL MARKERS BE USED TO BETTER DEFINE PRIMARY BILIARY CHOLANGITIS (PBC)-AUTOIMMUNE HEPATITIS (AIH) OVERLAP SYNDROME

2018· article· en· W2789266999 on OpenAlexaffabout
Henry H. Nguyen, A M Shaheen, Stefan J. Urbanski, Marvin J. Fritzler, Andrew L. Mason, Mark G. Swain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerologyPrimary biliary cirrhosisAutoantibodyAutoimmune hepatitisOverlap syndromeMedicineUrsodeoxycholic acidImmunoassayInternal medicineImmunologyGastroenterologyAntibodyHepatitisDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is estimated that up to 18% of patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC) can be classified as having overlap features with Autoimmune Hepatitis (AIH). Patients with PBC-AIH overlap syndrome (OS) have been reported to exhibit suboptimal responses to Ursodeoxycholic acid therapy, and are more likely to progress to cirrhosis and its’ complications. Serological markers, including anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and anti-P53, have been suggested to be robust markers for identifying patients with PBC-AIH OS. The identification of serological markers that can be confidently used to identify patients with PBC-AIH OS would be useful for the clinical management of PBC-AIH OS. In our well defined PBC patient cohorts, various serological markers were evaluated for their potential utility for identifying PBC-AIH OS patients. Blood samples from 214 patients from University of Calgary Liver Unit and University of Alberta biobanks were analyzed by Mitogen Diagnostic Laboratory (Calgary, AB Canada) for various classical and novel autoantibodies. Anti-dsDNA was measured by either the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence (CLIFT) assay (1:20 dilution) or a chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA; Inova Diagnostics, SanDiego). Anti-P53, anti-Ro52/TRIM21, anti-YB 1, anti-MPP1, anti-GW182, anti-Ge-1, and anti-Ago 2 were measured by either an Addressable Laser Bead Immunoassay (ALBIA) or Line Immunoassay (LIA). Frequency of autoantibodies were compared between study groups using non-parametric statistical methods. The performance of patient serum biochemistry and autoantibody profiles to predict OS was determined using multivariate analysis. PBC-AIH OS was diagnosed according to the Paris criteria (Chazouilleres et al) and PBC was diagnosed as per European Association for the Study of the Liver guidelines. Of the 214 patients assessed, 16 (7.5%) had a diagnosis of OS. Compared to PBC patients, OS patients had similar age (median: 59 vs. 63, P=0.21) and female predominance (94% vs. 89%, P=1.00). Anti-dsDNA measured by CLIFT (37.5% in OS vs. 9.1% in PBC, P=<0.01), elevated serum ALT (62 IU/L in OS vs. 35 IU/L in PBC, P<0.01), and an elevated serum IgG (17.6 g/L in OS vs. 12.1 g/L in PBC, P<0.01) were associated with OS. In a multivariate model, Anti-dsDNA-by CLIFT, ALT and IgG were significant predictors of OS with area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) value of 0.84. The combination of presence of anti-dsDNA, elevated serum ALT, and elevated serum IgG can be used to identify patients with PBC-AIH OS. Contrary to previous reports, anti-P53 was not associated with OS. In addition, other autoantibodies including anti-dsDNA (measured via CIA), anti-Ro52/TRIM21, anti-YB 1, anti-MPP1, anti-GW182, anti-Ge-1, and anti-Ago 2 were not associated with OS. CIHRCal Wenzel Family Foundation Chair in Hepatology

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207