Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bile acids have been used for treating primary sclerosing cholangitis, but their beneficial and harmful effects remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bile acids for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Chinese Biomedical Database generally from inception through to May 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing any dose or duration of bile acids versus placebo, no intervention, or another intervention were included. Trials were included irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted the data. The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated with respect to the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double blinding, and follow-up. The results were reported by intention-to-treat analysis. The outcomes were presented as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified six randomised clinical trials, all with low methodological quality. Patients were treated for three months to six years (median two years). Five trials (183 patients) compared ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo, and one trial (40 patients) compared ursodeoxycholic acid versus no treatment. Ursodeoxycholic acid did not significantly reduce the risk of death (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.73); treatment failure including liver transplantation, varices, ascites, and encephalopathy (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.42); liver histological deterioration (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.74); or liver cholangiographic deterioration (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.02). Ursodeoxycholic acid significantly improved serum bilirubin (WMD -14.6 micro mol/litre; 95% CI -18.7 to -10.6), alkaline phosphatases (WMD -506 IU/litre; 95% CI -583 to -430), aspartate aminotransferase (WMD -46 IU/litre; 95% CI -77 to -16), and gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase (WMD -260 IU/litre; 95% CI -315 to -205), but not albumin (WMD -0.20 g/litre; 95% CI -1.91 to 1.50). Ursodeoxycholic acid was well tolerated. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Ursodeoxycholic acid leads to a significant improvement in liver biochemistry, but there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute its clinical effects in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Large scale, high-quality randomised clinical trials are needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".