MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413205150 · doi:10.1007/s43472-025-00173-w

Neue Standards in der Behandlung der primären biliären Cholangitis

2025· article· de· W4413205150 on OpenAlexaff
Marius Vögelin, Andreas E. Kremer

Bibliographic record

VenueSchweizer Gastroenterologie · 2025
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversität Zürich
KeywordsGynecologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zusammenfassung Die primäre biliäre Cholangitis (PBC) ist eine chronische, cholestatische Lebererkrankung, die unbehandelt zur Zirrhose führen kann und häufig mit Fatigue, Pruritus und Sicca-Symptomatik einhergeht. Seit über 40 Jahren ist Ursodeoxycholsäure die Standardtherapie. Allerdings sprechen 30–40 % der Patient:innen nicht ausreichend auf Ursodeoxycholsäure an oder zeigen Risikofaktoren für ein Fortschreiten, was eine Zweitlinientherapie erforderlich macht. Neue internationale Kohortenanalysen ermöglichen eine frühzeitige Identifikation von Risikopatient:innen und belegen, dass strengere Therapieziele die Mortalität und den Transplantationsbedarf senken können. Neben etablierten Zweitlinienmedikamenten wie Obeticholsäure oder Fibraten befinden sich mehrere neue Wirkstoffe in fortgeschrittenen Studienphasen. Insbesondere Seladelpar und Elafibranor – beides selektive Agonisten von Peroxisom-Proliferator-aktivierten Rezeptoren – zeigten in Phase-2- und -3-Studien eine gute Verträglichkeit sowie hohe biochemische Ansprechraten. Sie wurden daher kürzlich zur Zweitlinientherapie der primären biliären Cholangitis zugelassen. Zudem widmen sich klinische Studien verstärkt den belastenden Leitsymptomen Fatigue und Pruritus, mit dem Ziel, die Lebensqualität der Betroffenen zu verbessern.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.015

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchweizer GastroenterologieSame topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207