ArticleCommunications medicine2025
A genes and health recall study of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and cholestatic liver disease.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCholestatic liver disease disproportionately affects South Asians, yet they remain underrepresented in genomic studies. This recall study aimed to recall volunteers from a British South Asian genetic cohort that were considered to be at high risk of cholestatic liver disease based on their genotype or phenotype.
methodsCases were defined as participants with rare (minor allele frequency <1%) heterozygous loss of function (LoF) variants in ABCB4 and ABCB11 (genotype re-call) or with a previous intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) diagnosis (ICD10 O26.6). Cases were matched 1:1 to controls. A detailed medical and family history was taken along with fasting anthropometric and transient elastography (TE) measurements and blood samples.
resultsOut of 22 eligible volunteers, 9 (41%) participate in the recall (8/9 genotype and 1/9 phenotype recall). Among the recalled cases there are 5 ABCB4 LoF, 3 ABCB11 LoF, and 1 ICP phenotype. Of these, 5/9 (55.6%) exhibit findings suggestive of liver involvement (genotype re-call). Specifically, 2/5 (50%) have increased liver stiffness on TE with one also demonstrating abnormal liver blood tests. 2/5(40%) report at least 2 cholestatic symptoms and an additional 1/5 (20%) demonstrates abnormal liver blood tests without increased liver stiffness.
conclusionsThis study shows findings suggestive of liver involvement in 55.6% of volunteers, underscoring the potential of rare heterozygous ABCB4/11 variants as markers for identifying individuals at high risk of developing cholestatic liver disease. Consequently, individuals at higher genetic risk benefit from monitoring, personalised treatment and prevention strategies for cholestatic liver disease.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.