Biochemical response to ursodeoxycholic acid among PBC patients: a nationwide population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the proportion of PBC patients with a biochemical response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in a population-based cohort and the association of biochemical response with outcomes.Methods: All patients diagnosed with PBC in Iceland from 1991–2015 were identified. Patients taking UDCA for an adequate period of time were analyzed for treatment response according to the Barcelona, Paris I, Paris II and Toronto criteria and outcomes.Results: Overall 182 females and 40 males were diagnosed with PBC and 135 patients were treated with UDCA. Overall 99 (73%) patients had adequate data on UDCA treatment and results of liver tests to assess biochemical response according to the Barcelona criteria, 95 (70%) according to the Toronto criterion and 85 (63%) according to the Paris I and II criteria. In all 74% (n = 63), 67% (n = 64), 54% (n = 53) and 46% (n = 39) responded to treatment according to the Paris I, Toronto, Barcelona and Paris II criteria. Among nonresponders according to the Paris I, Toronto, Paris II and Barcelona criteria, 50%, 39%, 33% and 30% developed cirrhosis versus 10%, 6%, 5% and 11% of responders, HR 5.36 (p = .002), 6.61 (p = .002), 10.94 (p = .003) and 2.21(p = .11), respectively. Age-adjusted mortality was significantly lower among responders according to the Paris I and Paris II criteria, HR 0.33 (p = .02) and 0.31 (p = .02), respectively.Conclusion: Development of cirrhosis and higher mortality was significantly associated with a lack of biochemical response to UDCA. Frequent development of cirrhosis and increased mortality in nonresponders underlines the need for a more effective therapy than UDCA for this sizeable subgroup of patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".