The impact of sex in primary glomerulonephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing the impact of sex in primary glomerular disease have reported conflicting results. METHODS: We analysed 395 membranous (MGN), 370 focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) and 542 IgA nephropathy patients to determine the impact of the patients' sex on outcome. We assessed initial and follow-up blood pressure, proteinuria, anti-hypertensive and immunosuppressive therapy, rate of renal function decline and survival from renal failure or a 50% decrease in creatinine clearance (combined event). RESULTS: Women accounted for one-third of the cohort. At presentation they were on average 2 years younger than men, and over follow-up received no more immunosuppression or anti-hypertensive agents than their male counterpart. Their mean arterial pressure (MAP) overall was 2 mmHg lower. Proteinuria at presentation and during follow-up in women compared to men was 50% and 30% lower in MGN and FSGS, while no differences were seen in IgA nephropathy. The rate of renal function decline and outcome favoured women over men in MGN (hazard ratios of a combined event of 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-1.00, P = 0.05) and in FSGS (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.95, P = 0.02) but not in IgA nephropathy. These differences were not independent of blood pressure and proteinuria, indicating that these sex-dependent risk factors accounted for most of the hazards seen in men. However, the quantitative effect of proteinuria on the rate of progression was distinct and modified by sex in MGN and FSGS with higher proteinuria levels having less impact on progression rate in women. This interaction was independent of blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Women have a better outcome than men in MGN and FSGS but not in IgA nephropathy. These benefits are mostly mediated through both lower proteinuria and blood pressure at presentation and throughout follow-up, although females did have an independent advantage at higher levels of proteinuria.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".