Current Therapies for Lupus Nephritis in an Ethnically Heterogeneous Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate responses to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and intravenous cyclophosphamide (CYC) in lupus nephritis in a multiethnic population. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) that underwent kidney biopsy at New York University Medical Center. Patients with followup of at least 6 months were included. Clinical response was defined as complete (return to +/- 10% of normal) or partial (improvement of 50% in abnormal renal measurements). RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were included in the study: 86% females, 86% non-Caucasian, age 34.2 +/- 1.1 years, 62% with proliferative nephritis (PN; ISN/RPS-III and IV), and 32% with membranous nephritis (MN; ISN/RPS-V). Of the 70 patients with PN, 37 were treated with CYC and 33 with MMF. The baseline characteristics of the 2 treatment groups were different in the incidence of ISN/RPS-IV, values of serum creatinine and serum albumin, and type of insurance (p < 0.05). The response rate was greater in the MMF than in the CYC group (70% vs 41%). Responses to MMF were different in Asians (11/11), Caucasians (4/5), African Americans (3/5), and Hispanics (5/11). Responses to CYC had a similar distribution (Asians 6/10, Caucasians 4/5, African Americans 4/9, Hispanics 1/11). In the MN group (N = 23) responses were similar to the PN group (73% MMF and 38% CYC). After adjusting for race, serum creatinine, serum albumin, type of insurance, and class of nephritis, in a logistic regression model, response to MMF was superior to CYC: OR 6.2 (95% CI 1.9-20.2). Hispanics had worse outcome than Caucasians (OR 0.17). Longterm followup suggested no difference in maintenance with MMF or CYC. CONCLUSION: After controlling for the fact that less severe nephritis is preferentially treated with MMF, we found overall that response to MMF was superior to CYC. In this US population, ethnicity was observed to have an influence on response.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".