Response to Letter Regarding “An Artificial Neural Network-Based Model to Predict Chronic Kidney Disease in Aged Cats”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We read with interest the letter from Dr. Wun regarding our article “An artificial neural network-based model to predict chronic kidney disease in aged cats” published in Volume 34, Issue 5 of Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine (JVIM). The issue he raises is a common misconception about the International Renal Interest Society (IRIS) staging system, which should not be used to diagnose chronic kidney disease (CKD). Rather, it is used to stage cats (and dogs) once a clinical diagnosis of CKD has been made. All cats used to derive and validate the algorithm in our study were healthy based on history and physical examination and had serum creatinine concentrations below the diagnostic threshold for CKD according to the reference interval of the laboratory used, and thus did not have a diagnosis of CKD at the time of screening. The IRIS staging system accounts for the fact that serum creatinine concentration is insensitive in identifying cats with early CKD. For this reason, stage 1 and the first part of stage 2 CKD for the cat use serum creatinine concentration cut-offs that are below the laboratory reference intervals of many diagnostic laboratories. In such cases, other criteria are required to make a diagnosis of CKD, such as a combination of persistent proteinuria, persistent structural changes identified in the kidney, progressive increases in serum creatinine concentration over time, or persistently increased serum symmetric dimethylarginine (SDMA) concentration. The article on the IRIS website written by Dr. Syme summarizes these clearly: https://www.iris-kidney.com/ckd-early-diagnosis. These diagnostic criteria are more subtle and often difficult for general practitioners to clearly define. One of the goals in deriving the algorithm in our paper was to use neural network analysis to identify patterns in the commonly applied screening tests used in general practice to identify the cats that have a high likelihood of developing azotemic CKD within 12 months of the screening event. We wanted to do this based on a single screening event in a population of healthy senior cats recognizing that many owners in Europe do not want their healthy cats to have screening events more frequently than annually. The cats identified by the algorithm have early-stage CKD (as shown by prospectively following and documenting their development of persistent azotaemia, diagnostic of CKD) but are at a stage where plasma creatinine concentration is still within the laboratory reference interval and would thus be considered as normal in a regular senior screening. Neural network analysis evaluated all possible combinations of screening test results to identify at a single visit the combination with the highest specificity while not compromising on sensitivity in predicting the future development of CKD. The use of plasma creatinine concentration alone performed less well than when combined with both urine specific gravity and plasma urea concentration. We hope this letter explains our approach and the interpretation of single test results. Yours sincerely,
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,013 |
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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».