MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2973827026 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciz930

Reply to Krahn and Sebastiani

2019· letter· en· W2973827026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hannele Yki‐Järvinen, Susanna Lallukka‐Brück, Jussi Sutinen

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor—We thank Drs Krahn and Sebastiani for their valuable thoughts regarding the rate of progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to advanced fibrosis in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The authors wonder whether progression of NAFLD is as rare as we suggest. As described above, in our study, liver fat content remained unchanged when measured by state-of-the-art proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) during 16 years of follow-up in 41 HIV-positive (HIV+) subjects and 28 healthy control subjects [1]. Liver fibrosis was estimated by measuring liver stiffness using state-of-the-art magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) as well as the less accurate technique of transient elastography (TE) at the time of follow-up but not at baseline [2]. There were no significant differences in liver stiffness measured by TE between the HIV+ and healthy subjects at follow-up and no differences in stiffness measured by MRE between HIV+ patients with lipodystrophy compared to those without lipodystrophy. However, as pointed out by Krahn and Sebastiani, including the individual patient who died of liver cirrhosis, 4 of 42 (9.52%) of the HIV+ patients had clinically significant fibrosis at follow-up. A maximum incidence rate of significant fibrosis can be calculated by assuming that no patient had advanced fibrosis at baseline. This rate would be approximately 0.6 cases of advanced fibrosis/100 person-years. The question is how does this maximum rate compare to other studies in HIV+ subjects and to HIV-negative (HIV−) subjects? The studies in HIV+ subjects are listed in the Table 1 presented by Krahn and Sebastiani. None of the studies included healthy control subjects and it is thus difficult to judge the clinical significance of the reported incidences. Furthermore, the studies did not address the incidence of advanced fibrosis as the cutoff for fibrosis using TE was 7.1 kPa in the Canadian study [3] and 7.2 kPa in the Spanish study [4]. The recently recommended cutoff for advanced fibrosis is 9.7 kPa [5]—that is, even higher than was considered appropriate at the time of our study (8.7 kPa). In one of the studies, no imaging studies were performed [3]. Regarding progression of fibrosis in HIV− subjects, longitudinal data have been surprisingly sparse and based on very few subjects. In a meta-analysis of paired biopsy studies, 5 of 81 patients (6.2%) with initial nonalcoholic fatty liver progressed to bridging fibrosis over 9.3 years (incidence approximately 0.7 cases/100 person-years) [6]. Taken together, all currently available studies, including our own, have weaknesses that make it difficult to conclude whether HIV+ patients are at higher risk of liver fibrosis than HIV− subjects. However, it is clear that features of insulin resistance, such as increased liver fat content, waist circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio, which are particularly prevalent in HIV+ patients with lipodystrophy or obesity, predict NAFLD fibrosis similarly in HIV+ and HIV− subjects [1]. This implies that it is as essential to pay attention to risk factors of advanced liver fibrosis and type 2 diabetes in HIV+ subjects as it is in obese subjects and those with the metabolic/insulin resistance syndrome. Potential conflicts of interest. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0230.045
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious Diseases→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→