Inflammatory conditions play a role in recurrence of PSC after liver transplantation: An international multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aims: Liver transplantation (LT) for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is complicated by recurrence of PSC (rPSC) in up to 25% of recipients. Recurrence has been shown to be detrimental for both graft and patient survival. For both PSC and rPSC, a medical cure is not available. To predict and ideally to prevent rPSC, it is imperative to find risk factors for rPSC that can be potentially modified. Therefore, we aimed to identify such factors for rPSC in a large international multicentre study including 6 centres in PSC-prevalent countries. Methods: In this international multicentre, retrospective cohort study, 531 patients who underwent transplantation for PSC were included. In 25% of cases (n = 131), rPSC was diagnosed after a median follow-up of 6.72 (3.29-10.11) years post-LT. Results: In the multivariable competing risk model with time-dependent covariates, we found that factors representing an increased inflammatory state increase the risk for rPSC. Recurrent cholangitis before LT as indication for LT (hazard ratio [HR] 3.6, 95% CI 2.5-5.2), increased activity of inflammatory bowel disease after LT (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.08-2.75), and multiple acute cellular rejections (HR: non-linear) were significantly and independently associated with an increased risk of rPSC. In contrast to the findings of previous studies, pretransplant colectomy was not found to be independently protective against the development of rPSC. Conclusions: . Recurrent cholangitis as indication for LT was associated with an increased risk of rPSC. Impact and implications: Recurrence of PSC (rPSC) negatively affects survival after liver transplant (LT). Modifiable risk factors could guide clinical management and prevention of rPSC. We demonstrate that an increased inflammatory state both before and after LT increases the incidence of rPSC. As these are modifiable factors, they could serve as targets for future studies and therapies. We also added further evidence to the ongoing debate regarding preventive colectomy for rPSC by reporting that in our multicenter study, we could not find an independent association between colectomy and risk of rPSC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".