MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911689495 · doi:10.1111/apt.15148

Systematic review with meta‐analysis: risk factors for recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis after liver transplantation

2019· review· en· W2911689495 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiver transplantationPrimary sclerosing cholangitisMeta-analysisGastroenterologyInternal medicineTransplantationRisk factorDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: After liver transplantation primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), the condition returns in the transplanted liver in a subset of patients (recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis, rPSC). AIM: To define risk factors for rPSC. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for articles published until March 2018. Studies addressing risk factors for developing rPSC were eligible for inclusion. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted using hazard ratios (HR) as effect measure. Study quality was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Statistical analysis was performed using Cochrane Review Manager. RESULTS: The electronic database search yielded 449 results. Twenty-one retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria for the review; 14 were included in the meta-analysis. The final cohort included 2159 patients (age range 31-49 years, 68.8% male), of whom 17.7% developed rPSC. Colectomy before liver transplantation, HR 0.65 (95% CI: 0.42-0.99), cholangiocarcinoma before liver transplantation, HR 2.42 (95% CI: 1.20-4.86), inflammatory bowel disease, HR 1.73 (95% CI: 1.17-2.54), donor age, HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.0-1.45) per ten years, MELD score, HR 1.05 (95% CI: 1.02-1.08) per point and acute cellular rejection, HR of 1.94 (95% CI: 1.32-2.83) were associated with the risk of rPSC. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors for rPSC were identified. Colectomy before liver transplantation reduced the risk of rPSC.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.259 · 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