Hepcidin-25 in Diabetic Chronic Kidney Disease Is Predictive for Mortality and Progression to End Stage Renal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anemia is common and is associated with impaired clinical outcomes in diabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD). It may be explained by reduced erythropoietin (EPO) synthesis, but recent data suggest that EPO-resistance and diminished iron availability due to inflammation contribute significantly. In this cohort study, we evaluated the impact of hepcidin-25--the key hormone of iron-metabolism--on clinical outcomes in diabetic patients with CKD along with endogenous EPO levels. METHODS: 249 diabetic patients with CKD of any stage, excluding end-stage renal disease (ESRD), were enrolled (2003-2005), if they were not on EPO-stimulating agent and iron therapy. Hepcidin-25 levels were measured by radioimmunoassay. The association of hepcidin-25 at baseline with clinical variables was investigated using linear regression models. All-cause mortality and a composite endpoint of CKD progression (ESRD or doubling of serum creatinine) were analyzed by Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Patients (age 67 yrs, 53% male, GFR 51 ml/min, hemoglobin 131 g/L, EPO 13.5 U/L, hepcidin-25 62.0 ng/ml) were followed for a median time of 4.2 yrs. Forty-nine patients died (19.7%) and forty (16.1%) patients reached the composite endpoint. Elevated hepcidin levels were independently associated with higher ferritin-levels, lower EPO-levels and impaired kidney function (all p<0.05). Hepcidin was related to mortality, along with its interaction with EPO, older age, greater proteinuria and elevated CRP (all p<0.05). Hepcidin was also predictive for progression of CKD, aside from baseline GFR, proteinuria, low albumin- and hemoglobin-levels and a history of CVD (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found hepcidin-25 to be associated with EPO and impaired kidney function in diabetic CKD. Elevated hepcidin-25 and EPO-levels were independent predictors of mortality, while hepcidin-25 was also predictive for progression of CKD. Both hepcidin-25 and EPO may represent important prognostic factors of clinical outcome and have the potential to further define "high risk" populations in CKD.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".