Poor Prediction of the Glomerular Filtration Rate Using Current Formulas in De Novo Liver Transplant Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The utility of formulas estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in liver transplant patients has not been well described. The purpose is to determine the correlation between the radionuclide GFR (rGFR) with formulas commonly used to estimate GFR. This study represented a secondary outcome measure of a multicenter randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of two immunosuppressive regimens in adult liver transplant patients (n=148). A total of 68 rGFR were measured, 33 at baseline and at 35 at three months after transplantation. GFR was estimated using 1/Scr and Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, and Nankivell equations. At both time points assessed, all correlations with rGFR were poor: 1/Scr (r: 0.17 and 0.25), Cockcroft-Gault (r: 0.31 and 0.35), MDRD (r: 0.27 and 0.35), and Nankivell (r: 0.11 and 0.20). Accepted formulas to estimate GFR correlate poorly with rGFR during the first three months after liver transplantation. Recalibration of these formulas is required to improve the estimation of GFR in liver transplant patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".