Have We Changed the Outcome in Membranous Nephropathy? A Propensity Study on the Role of Immunosuppressive Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The long-term effect of immunosuppressive therapy (IS) on kidney survival in idiopathic membranous nephropathy (MGN) is debated. The introduction of renin angiotensin blockade, rigorous BP control, and the increasing age at presentation of patients with MGN adds further uncertainty. Given these important changes, we sought to determine whether implementation of IS has altered outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 280 incident MGN patients from three distinct 10-year periods starting from 1975. RESULTS: We found expected changes in treatment regimens but also variations in age, renal function, severity of proteinuria, and BP at presentation over this time. Outcomes did not differ over time if these significant variations in clinical characteristics were not accounted for across the eras. The effect of IS in the 57 patients treated with currently recommended regimens was assessed using propensity adjustment to address selection bias and the effect of newer, conservative therapies. A propensity score estimating the probability of receiving IS permitted the pairing of 39 treated patients with controls with similar high risk of progression of clinical features. Using this approach, IS was associated not only with remissions in proteinuria but also with substantially improved renal survival. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms that patient presenting characteristics and management regimens have changed significantly over time and the natural history of MGN has been altered. A study of propensity-matched patients confirms that current recommendations for IS have improved outcomes in MGN patients at high risk of progression.
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 | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".