MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1861111308 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2189w

An Overlapping Case of Lupus Nephritis and IgG4-Related Kidney Disease

2015· article· en· W1861111308 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mazen Zaarour, Chanudi Weerasinghe, Ahmad Eter, Suzanne El‐Sayegh, Elie El‐Charabaty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLupus nephritisProteinuriaSystemic lupus erythematosusRenal biopsyInterstitial nephritisGastroenterologyPathologyNephritisKidney diseaseInternal medicineKidneyNephropathyGlomerulonephritisAcute kidney injuryBiopsyDiseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a case of a 71-year-old Filipino female who was admitted to the hospital for abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhea of 8 days duration. The patient was found to have marked acute kidney injury (AKI), which required hemodialysis in the next 3 days. Extensive workup revealed hematuria, subnephrotic range proteinuria, elevated anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) and elevated total immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels, with normal IgG4 and anti-dsDNA levels. On kidney biopsy, mild membranous glomerulonephritis was found, along with autoimmune tubulointerstitial nephritis (TIN) with a "full-house" pattern of immune deposits. These findings were suggestive of lupus interstitial nephritis. However, IgG4+ plasma cells were detected in the interstitium by immunostaining, favoring a diagnosis of IgG4-related kidney disease (IgG4-RKD). Our case highlights the difficulty in differentiating lupus nephritis (LN) from IgG4-RKD in some patients, raising the suspicion that these two entities can co-exist.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicRenal Diseases and GlomerulopathiesFrench-language works237,207