MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020795504 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.080625

Changes in the Incidence of Endstage Renal Disease Due to Lupus Nephritis in the United States, 1996–2004

2008· article· en· W2020795504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael M. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAustralian GovernmentNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineLupus nephritisIncidence (geometry)PopulationSystemic lupus erythematosusEnd stage renal diseaseInternal medicineEpidemiologyDiseaseDemographyPediatricsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the incidence of endstage renal disease (ESRD) due to lupus nephritis has decreased from 1996 to 2004. METHODS: Patients age 15 years or older with incident ESRD due to lupus nephritis in 1996-2004 and living in one of the 50 United States or the District of Columbia were identified using the US Renal Data System, a national population-based registry of all patients receiving renal replacement therapy for ESRD. Incidence rates were computed for each calendar year, using population estimates of the US census as denominators. RESULTS: Over the 9-year study period, 9199 new cases of ESRD due to lupus nephritis were observed. Incidence rates, adjusted to the age, sex, and race composition of the US population in 2000, were 4.4 per million in 1996 and 4.9 per million in 2004. Compared to the pooled incidence rate in 1996-1998, the relative risk of ESRD due to lupus nephritis in 1999-2000 was 0.99 (95% CI 0.93-1.06), in 2001-2002 was 0.99 (95% CI 0.92-1.06), and in 2003-2004 was 0.96 (95% CI 0.89-1.02). Findings were similar in analyses stratified by sex, age group, race, and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: There was no decrease in the incidence of ESRD due to lupus nephritis between 1996 and 2004. This may reflect the limits of effectiveness of current treatments, or limitations in access, use, or adherence to treatment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations122
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207