Diagnostic accuracy of urinary spot protein:creatinine ratio for proteinuria in hypertensive pregnant women: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the spot protein:creatinine ratio and albumin:creatinine ratio as diagnostic tests for significant proteinuria in hypertensive pregnant women. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline and Embase, the Cochrane Library, reference lists, and experts. Review methods Literature search (1980-2007) for articles of the spot protein:creatinine ratio or albumin:creatinine ratio in hypertensive pregnancy, with 24 hour proteinuria as the comparator. RESULTS: 13 studies concerned the spot protein:creatinine ratio (1214 women with primarily gestational hypertension). Nine studies reported sensitivity and specificity for eight cut-off points, median 24 mg/mmol (range 17-57 mg/mmol; 0.15-0.50 mg/mg). Laboratory assays were not well described. Diagnostic test characteristics were recalculated for a cut-off point of 30 mg/mmol. No significant heterogeneity in cut-off points was found between studies over a range of proteinuria. Pooled values gave a sensitivity of 83.6% (95% confidence interval 77.5% to 89.7%), specificity of 76.3% (72.6% to 80.0%), positive likelihood ratio of 3.53 (2.83 to 4.49), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.21 (0.13 to 0.31) (nine studies, 1003 women). Two studies of the spot albumin:creatinine ratio (225 women) found optimal cut-off points of 2 mg/mmol for proteinuria of 0.3 g/day or more and 27 mg/mmol for albuminuria. CONCLUSION: The spot protein:creatinine ratio is a reasonable "rule-out" test for detecting proteinuria of 0.3 g/day or more in hypertensive pregnancy. Information on use of the albumin:creatinine ratio in these women is insufficient.
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 | 0.008 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".