Pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis is under-recorded in patient medical records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cholestatic pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) reduces patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite this, existing research suggests that pruritus is under-recorded in patients' health records. This study assessed the extent to which pruritus was recorded in medical records of patients with PBC as compared with patient-reported pruritus, and whether patients reporting mild itch were less likely to have pruritus recorded. We also evaluated clinico-demographic characteristics and HRQoL of patients with medical record-documented and patient-reported pruritus. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study used clinical information abstracted from medical records, together with patient-reported (PBC-40) data from patients with PBC in the USA enrolled in the PicnicHealth cohort. Medical record-documented pruritus was classified as 'recent' (at, or within 12 months prior to, enrolment) or 'ever' (at, or any point prior to, enrolment). Patient-reported pruritus (4-week recall) was assessed using the first PBC-40 questionnaire completed on/after enrolment; pruritus severity was classified by itch domain score (any severity: ≥1; clinically significant itch: ≥7). Patient clinico-demographic characteristics and PBC-40 domain scores were described in patients with medical record-documented and patient-reported pruritus; overlap between groups was evaluated. Descriptive statistics were reported. RESULTS: Pruritus of any severity was self-reported by 200/225 (88.9%) patients enrolled; however, only 88/225 (39.1%) had recent medical record-documented pruritus. Clinically significant pruritus was self-reported by 120/225 (53.3%) patients; of these, 64/120 (53.3%) had recent medical record-documented pruritus. Patients reporting clinically significant pruritus appeared to have higher mean scores across PBC-40 domains (indicating reduced HRQoL), versus patients with no/mild patient-reported pruritus or medical-record documented pruritus. CONCLUSION: Compared with patient-reported measures, pruritus in PBC is under-recorded in medical records and is associated with lower HRQoL. Research based only on medical records underestimates the true burden of pruritus, meaning physicians may be unaware of the extent and impact of pruritus, leading to potential undertreatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".