Optimizing therapy in primary biliary cholangitis: Alkaline phosphatase at six months identifies one‐year non‐responders and predicts survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and insufficient response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), currently assessed after 1 year, are candidates for second-line therapy. The aims of this study are to assess biochemical response pattern and determine the utility of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) at six months as a predictor of insufficient response. METHODS: UDCA-treated patients in the GLOBAL PBC database with available liver biochemistries at one year were included. POISE criteria were used to assess response to treatment, defined as ALP <1.67 × upper limit of normal (ULN) and normal total bilirubin at one year. Various thresholds of ALP at six months were evaluated to predict insufficient response based on negative predictive value (NPV) and that with nearest to 90% NPV was selected. RESULTS: For the study, 1362 patients were included, 1232 (90.5%) female, mean age of 54 years. The POISE criteria were met by 56.4% (n = 768) of patients at one year. The median ALP (IQR) of those who met POISE criteria compared to those who did not was 1.05 × ULN (0.82-1.33) vs. 2.37 × ULN (1.72-3.69) at six months (p < .001). Of 235 patients with serum ALP >1.9 × ULN at six months, 89% did not achieve POISE criteria (NPV) after one year of UDCA. Of those with insufficient response by POISE criteria at one year, 210 (67%) had an ALP >1.9 × ULN at six months and thus would have been identified early. CONCLUSIONS: We can identify patients for second-line therapy at six months using an ALP threshold of 1.9 × ULN, given that approximately 90% of these patients are non-responders according to POISE criteria.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".