Prognostic scores for ursodeoxycholic acid-treated patients predict graft loss and mortality in recurrent primary biliary cholangitis after liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recurrent primary biliary cholangitis (rPBC) develops in approximately 30% of patients and negatively impacts graft and overall patient survival after liver transplantation (LT). There is a lack of data regarding the response rate to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in rPBC. We evaluated a large, international, multi-center cohort to assess the performance of PBC scores in predicting the risk of graft and overall survival after LT in patients with rPBC. METHODS: A total of 332 patients with rPBC after LT were evaluated from 28 centers across Europe, North and South America. The median age at the time of rPBC was 58.0 years [IQR 53.2-62.6], and 298 patients (90%) were female. The biochemical response was measured with serum levels of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and bilirubin, and Paris-2, GLOBE and UK-PBC scores at 1 year after UDCA initiation. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 8.7 years [IQR 4.3-12.9] after rPBC diagnosis, 52 patients (16%) had graft loss and 103 (31%) died. After 1 year of UDCA initiation the histological stage at rPBC (hazard ratio [HR] 3.97, 95% CI 1.36-11.55, p = 0.01), use of prednisone (HR 3.18, 95% CI 1.04-9.73, p = 0.04), ALP xULN (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.26-2.01, p <0.001), Paris-2 criteria (HR 4.14, 95% CI 1.57-10.92, p = 0.004), GLOBE score (HR 2.82, 95% CI 1.71-4.66, p <0.001), and the UK-PBC score (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09, p <0.001) were associated with graft survival in the multivariate analysis. Similar results were observed for overall survival. CONCLUSION: Patients with rPBC and disease activity, as indicated by standard PBC risk scores, have impaired outcomes, supporting efforts to treat recurrent disease in similar ways to pre-transplant PBC. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: One in three people who undergo liver transplantation for primary biliary cholangitis develop recurrent disease in their new liver. Patients with recurrent primary biliary cholangitis and incomplete response to ursodeoxycholic acid, according to conventional prognostic scores, have worse clinical outcomes, with higher risk of graft loss and mortality in similar ways to the disease before liver transplantation. Our results supportsupport efforts to treat recurrent disease in similar ways to pre-transplant primary biliary cholangitis.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".