Differing environmental risk factors for membranous versus proliferative lupus nephritis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Nephritis is a frequent and severe organ involvement in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. This study examined hormonal and environmental risk factors for biopsy-proven lupus nephritis (LN), comparing exposures of lupus patients with LN with patients without LN; additional analyses were conducted specifically for the subsets of those with membranous versus proliferative nephritis. The Carolina Lupus Study (CLU) is a population-based, case-control study of hormonal, environmental, and genetic risk factors for SLE in the southeastern US ( n = 265 incident cases). Diagnosis of LN was determined at the time of enrollment up to 2001 by ACR criteria, with 63 nephritis cases confirmed based on renal biopsy records. An additional 100 biopsy-confirmed LN patients from the CLU study area and time period were identified through disease registries, comprising the nephritis CLU (CLN) cohort. Data collection for both cohorts was a structured 60-minute interview including female reproductive history, lifetime job history, smoking history, use of moonshine and family history of kidney disease, dialysis, hypertension and diabetes. We estimated the association between exposures and risk of developing LN, and LN subtypes (proliferative vs. membranous LN) using logistic regression models, with OR and 95% CI adjusted for age, state, race and education. Analyses were limited to exposures before diagnosis of lupus or LN. Ninety-seven of the LN cases were classified as proliferative, 39 as membranous and 20 as other classifications (WHO class 2, 6, or unclear from medical record). In 56 patients (36%), diagnosis of LN was concurrent with diagnosis of SLE, in 53 patients (36%) within 2 years of diagnosis and in 47 patients (28%) >2 years after SLE diagnosis. Thirty percent of AA patients versus 10% Caucasians met ACR criteria for LN in the first year following diagnosis. Compared with lupus patients who did not develop nephritis, risk of LN was associated with older age at menarche ( P for trend = 0.045), but no other reproductive factors. Reported use of moonshine was significantly higher among LN patients (OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.3 to 8.6), and higher among membranous compared with proliferative nephritis (OR = 17.87, 95% CI = 1.55 to 205.89). Likely or possible solvent exposure was associated with a significantly lower risk of nephritis (OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.76). There was no association with occupational exposure to silica dust, heavy metals or smoking history after adjusting for covariates. Null associations were seen for most other exposures and risk factors examined. See Table 1 . Our findings provide evidence of an increase risk of LN associated with past use of moonshine, family history of kidney disease, and later age at menarche. Null associations were seen for most other exposures and risk factors examined. Although not previously studied in relation to LN, moonshine use has been associated with chronic kidney disease in other studies as it contains lead and other heavy metals, and is thought to damage the kidney through a variety of mechanisms. The negative association of solvent exposure with membranous nephritis suggests that different pathophysiologic mechanisms may be involved in membranous versus proliferative LN.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».