Autoimmune Hepatitis in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to find the outcome and adverse effects of 2 initial treatments in children with autoimmune hepatitis, prednisone (PRED) plus azathioprine (AZA) versus cyclosporine (CsA). STUDY DESIGN: Between December 2008 and February 2012, 50 consecutive patients were centrally randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms. Group 1: PRED was indicated at a dose of 1 to 2 mg · kg · day (up to 60 mg/day) and AZA at a dose of 1 to 2 mg · kg · day. Group 2: CsA was administered at a dose of 4 mg · kg · day orally divided into 2 doses. After remission, all patients were given a combination of PRED at 0.3 to 0.5 mg · kg · day and AZA at 1 to 2 mg · kg · day. Children presenting liver failure were placed on a triple immunosuppressive regimen if this condition persisted after 1 week of treatment, after liver function normalization they were switched back to their initial scheme. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients received PRED-AZA and 24 CsA. Both treatments showed similar initial results in effectiveness and safety, although remission was achieved earlier with PRED-AZA: 8.6 versus CsA: 13.6 weeks (P < 0.0081). All children recovered liver function in a mean time of 32 ± 26 days. Cushingoid syndrome was more frequently observed with PRED-AZA (P < 0.001) and gingival hypertrophy with CsA (P < 0.001). A significant increase in body mass index was observed in all patients from initial treatment to remission, being greater with PRED-AZA. CONCLUSIONS: Similar outcomes were obtained with PRED plus AZA or CsA treatments. Either therapeutic strategy could be used according to the particular characteristics of each patient. Triple immunosuppression was beneficial in patients with liver failure at onset.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".