What the European Reference Network Registry for Rare Liver Diseases Tells Us About Primary Biliary Cholangitis in European Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) continues to evolve as a disease, due to advances in non-invasive options to monitor disease progression, new therapeutic strategies, and identification of predictors for biochemical response.[1] As illustrated by a recent nationwide Dutch cohort study, the epidemiology of PBC is evolving reflected by a rising incidence, with the highest point prevalence increase observed amongst those aged 65 years and older.[2] The study by Gerussi et al. in this issue of the United European Gastroenterology Journal provides a prospective snapshot of the care provided for 327 patients across six European Reference Network Registry for Rare Liver Diseases (ERN R-LIVER) referral centers.[3] The prospective multicenter design of this study represents a methodological strength that distinguishes it from previous PBC patient registries.By including patients diagnosed between 2017 and March 2024, the authors can reflect on the current approach and challenges faced in these patients.This offers insights into how practice has followed guidelines, while on the other hand illustrating the gap in treatment options for patients not responding to either ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), off-label fibrates, or other strategies including for example obeticholic acid (OCA).
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 | 0.012 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".