A Comparison of Prognostic Scores (Mayo, UK-PBC, and GLOBE) in Primary Biliary Cholangitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Comparative data on scores that predict outcome in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) are scarce. We aimed to assess and compare the prognostic value of the Mayo Risk Score (MRS, 1989 and 1994), UK-PBC score, and GLOBE score in a large international cohort of patients with PBC. METHODS: Ursodeoxycholic acid-treated patients from 7 centers participating in the GLOBAL PBC Study Group were included. The discriminatory performance of the scores was assessed with concordance statistics at yearly intervals up to 5 years. Model for End-stage Liver Disease was included for comparison. Prediction accuracy was assessed by comparing predicted survival and actual survival in Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1,100 ursodeoxycholic acid-treated patients with PBC were included, with a mean (SD) age of 53.6 (12.0) years, of whom 1,003 (91%) were female. During a median follow-up of 7.6 (interquartile range 4.1-11.7) years, 42 patients underwent liver transplantation, and 127 patients died. At 1 year, the concordance statistic for Model for End-stage Liver Disease was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.72), 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.80) for the UK-PBC score, 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.81) for the MRS (1989 and 1994), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) for the GLOBE score. The GLOBE score showed superior discriminatory performance, but differences were not statistically different. For all scores, discriminatory performance increased in those with bilirubin >0.6 × ULN and advanced fibrosis estimated with Fibrosis-4. The predicted (median) minus observed 5-year transplant-free survival was +0.4% and +2.5% for the MRS (1989) and GLOBE score, respectively. DISCUSSION: All prognostic scores developed for PBC (GLOBE, UK-PBC, and MRS) demonstrated comparable discriminating performance for liver transplantation or death as well as good prediction accuracy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".