Comparison between creatinine and cystatin C-based GFR equations in renal transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from serum creatinine (Scr) or cystatin C (Cys C) exhibit variable performances. METHODS: We compared the performances of 14 Scr and 9 Cys C estimated GFR equations using inulin clearance (Clin) as the reference test in 103 stable renal transplant populations. Bias, precision, receiving operation characteristics (ROC), accuracy within 30% ranges from the reference method and agreements of each test were compared. RESULTS: Mean Clin was 46.4+/-20.9 ml/min/1.73 m2. Scr and Cys C levels correlated well with each other (r=0.83, P<0.0001) and with Clin (r=-0.57 and -0.53, P<0.001, respectively). ROC analysis demonstrated no superiority of Cys C over Scr. Gats equation achieved the highest accuracy of 70% in patients with GFR>or=60 ml/min/1.73 m2. In patients with GFR>or=60 ml/min/1.73 m2, the Nankivell equation demonstrated the highest accuracy of 73.91%. Cys C-based equations were not depicted to be thoroughly accurate. Bias, precision and agreement were otherwise similar in all GFR tests. CONCLUSION: Scr-based equations did not appear to be inferior to Cys C-based equations as a means to estimate GFR in renal transplant patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".