Machine learning in primary biliary cholangitis: A novel approach for risk stratification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Machine learning (ML) provides new approaches for prognostication through the identification of novel subgroups of patients. We explored whether ML could support disease sub-phenotyping and risk stratification in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). METHODS: ML was applied to an international dataset of PBC patients. The dataset was split into a derivation cohort (training set) and a validation cohort (validation set), and key clinical features were analysed. The outcome was a composite of liver-related death or liver transplantation. ML and standard survival analysis were performed. RESULTS: The training set was composed of 11,819 subjects, while the validation set was composed of 1,069 subjects. ML identified four clusters of patients characterized by different phenotypes and long-term prognosis. Cluster 1 (n = 3566) included patients with excellent prognosis, whereas Cluster 2 (n = 3966) consisted of individuals at worse prognosis differing from Cluster 1 only for albumin levels around the limit of normal. Cluster 3 (n = 2379) included young patients with florid cholestasis and Cluster 4 (n = 1908) comprised advanced cases. Further sub-analyses on the dynamics of albumin within the normal range revealed that ursodeoxycholic acid-induced increase of albumin >1.2 x lower limit of normal (LLN) is associated with improved transplant-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised ML identified four novel groups of PBC patients with different phenotypes and prognosis and highlighted subtle variations of albumin within the normal range. Therapy-induced increase of albumin >1.2 x LLN should be considered a treatment goal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".