The Natural History of the Non-Nephrotic Membranous Nephropathy Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although early studies suggest that patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy (MGN) and subnephrotic range proteinuria overall do well, these studies were small and follow-up was short or difficult to discern. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Three hundred ninety-five cases of idiopathic MGN with at least 12 mo of follow-up from the Toronto Glomerulonephritis Registry were reviewed to determine the outcome of the subgroup of patients that presented with subnephrotic range proteinuria. Onset and follow-up data included mean arterial pressure (MAP) and creatinine clearance (CrCl) as determined by the Cockcroft-Gault equation. Outcome variables included the rate of progression (slope of CrCl), 50% reduction in initial CrCl, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). RESULTS: One hundred eight (27% of the total) patients presented with subnephrotic proteinuria and almost 40% (42 of 108) of this subgroup remained subnephrotic. Their long-term slope was -0.93 ml/min/yr. In contrast, those who subsequently developed nephrotic range proteinuria had a progression rate almost four times faster (-3.52 ml/min/yr). The majority who developed nephrotic syndrome did so within the first year of follow-up. The only distinguishing baseline feature between the two groups was a higher level of urine protein in the group that subsequently developed nephrotic syndrome (1.98 [0.3 to 3.4] versus 2.43 [0.5 to 3.4] g/d). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MGN and sustained subnephrotic range proteinuria have an excellent prognosis. Conservative management with close monitoring is recommended given the difficulty predicting which patients will develop nephrotic range proteinuria and then progress more rapidly.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".