Prospective evaluation of patients with non‐cirrhotic portal hypertension: A single centre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH) is a spectrum of liver diseases, including porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder, with portal hypertension (PH) in the absence of cirrhosis. The natural history and diagnostic approach to NCPH are not well understood. AIM: We aimed to evaluate disease progression and outcomes in NCPH. METHODS: Patients with or at risk for NCPH were enrolled in a single centre prospective study; two groups were formed based on the presence of specific features of PH, such as varices, collaterals, portal hypertensive gastropathy or portal hypertensive bleeding. All participants underwent a baseline liver biopsy. Liver stiffness measurement (LSM), and imaging were repeated every 6-12 months. RESULTS: Fifteen patients without specific features of PH (Group I), and 35 patients with specific features (Group II) were enrolled. The median follow-up time was 50 months. Group II had higher hepatic venous pressure gradients, non-invasive measures of PH and a lower platelet count (PLT) when compared to Group I. Rates of survival and decompensation were similar in both groups. Patients with PLT ≤100 K/mcL had lower survival compared to those with PLT >100 K/mcL. Patients with LSM ≥10 kPa had lower survival and survival without decompensation when compared to patients with LSM <10 kPa. CONCLUSIONS: Patients irrespective of specific features of PH had similar survival or survival without decompensation. Patients without specific features are at risk for disease progression and should be monitored closely. Thrombocytopenia and increased LSM are associated with severe forms of liver disease, which are strongly associated with outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".