MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801289664 · doi:10.1002/hep4.1186

External validation of the United Kingdom‐primary biliary cholangitis risk scores of patients with primary biliary cholangitis treated with ursodeoxycholic acid

2018· article· en· W2801289664 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Cheung, Aliya Gulamhusein, Brian D. Juran, Erik M. Schlicht, Bryan M. McCauley, Mariza de Andrade, Elizabeth J. Atkinson, Konstantinos N. Lazaridis

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicineUrsodeoxycholic acidInternal medicineConcordanceQuartilePrimary biliary cirrhosisFramingham Risk ScoreCumulative incidenceCohortPrimary sclerosing cholangitisGastroenterologyIncidence (geometry)Confidence intervalDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Kingdom‐Primary Biliary Cholangitis (UK‐PBC) risk scores are a set of prognostic models that estimate the risk of end‐stage liver disease in patients with PBC at 5‐, 10‐ and 15‐year intervals. They have not been externally validated outside the United Kingdom. In this retrospective, external validation study, data were abstracted from outpatient charts and discrimination and calibration of the UK‐PBC risk scores were assessed. A total of 464 patients with PBC treated with ursodeoxycholic acid were included. The median diagnosis age was 52.4 years, and 88% were female patients. The cumulative incidence of events was 6%, 9%, and 15% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Concordance (c‐statistic) was 0.88, 0.85, and 0.84 using the 5‐, 10‐ and 15‐year risk scores, respectively, which was slightly lower than values observed in the United Kingdom validation cohort. Using the 5‐year risk score, more events were observed than predicted (25 versus 16.8; P = 0.046); using the 10‐year risk score, there was no difference between the observed and predicted number of events (35 versus 44.9; P = 0.14); conversely, using the 15‐year risk score, fewer events were observed than predicted (46 versus 67.5; P = 0.009). Limiting evaluation by the 15‐year UK‐PBC risk score to those with >10 years of follow‐up demonstrated no difference between observed and predicted events. Using the 5‐year risk score, patients within the highest quartile had statistically significant worse event‐free survival compared to the rest of the cohort: 82% versus 98% at 5 years, 73% versus 97% at 10 years, and 58% versus 93% at 15 years. Conclusion: In patients assessed at a North American tertiary medical center, the UK‐PBC risk score had excellent discrimination and was reasonably calibrated both in the short and long term. ( Hepatology Communications 2018;2:676‐682)

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatology CommunicationsSame topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207