Validation of Risk Scoring Systems in Ursodeoxycholic Acid–Treated Patients With Primary Biliary Cholangitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification based on biochemical variables is a useful tool for monitoring ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-treated patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). Several UDCA response criteria and scoring systems have been proposed for risk prediction in PBC, but these have not been validated in large external cohorts. METHODS: We performed a study on data of 1746 UDCA-treated patients with PBC from 25 centers in Europe, United States, and Canada. The prognostic performance of the risk scoring systems (GLOBE and UK-PBC) and the UDCA response criteria (Barcelona, Paris I, Paris II, Rotterdam, and Toronto) were evaluated. We regarded cirrhosis-related complications (ascites, variceal bleeding, and/or hepatic encephalopathy) as clinical end points. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients reached a clinical end point during a median 7 years (range 1-16 years) of follow-up. The 5-, 10- and 15-year adverse outcome-free survivals were 95%, 85%, and 77%. The GLOBE and UK-PBC scores predicted cirrhosis-related complications better than the UDCA response criteria. The hazard ratio (HR) for a 1 standard deviation increase was HR 5.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.43-5.74, P < 0.001) for the GLOBE score and HR 3.39 (95% CI: 3.10-3.72, P < 0.001) for the UK-PBC score. Overall, the GLOBE and UK-PBC risk scores showed similar and excellent prognostic performance (C-statistic, 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91%-95% vs 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91%-0.96%). DISCUSSION: In our international, multicenter PBC cohort, the GLOBE and UK-PBC risk scoring systems were good predictors of future cirrhosis-related complications.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".