Validation of the kidney failure risk equation in European CKD patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at risk for progression to kidney failure. Using data of Canadian CKD patients, Tangri et al. recently developed models to predict the progression of CKD stages 3-5 to kidney failure within 5 years. We validated this kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) in European CKD patients. METHODS: We selected non-transplanted patients with CKD stages 3-5 who participated in the MASTERPLAN study, a randomized controlled trial in patients with CKD. Kidney failure was defined as the initiation of chronic dialysis or kidney transplantation within 5 years. Patients who died before kidney failure were censored. Patients followed for <5 years, who did not develop kidney failure and did not die, were excluded. The 5-year kidney failure risk was predicted using three different models developed by Tangri et al. and compared with the actual kidney failure rate in MASTERPLAN. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), the net reclassification index (NRI) and by comparing the observed and predicted rates of kidney failure. RESULTS: A total of 595 patients were included; 114 developed kidney failure. (Overall observed kidney failure risk in our cohort was 5% lower than in the Canadian validation cohort.) Discrimination of the eight-variable model [including age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), albuminuria, calcium, phosphate, bicarbonate, albumin] was similar to that of the four-variable model (including age, sex, eGFR, albuminuria) and the three-variable model (including age, sex, eGFR); ROC-AUCs were 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.92], 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.91) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.92), respectively. Using the NRI, the eight-variable model slightly outperformed the four-variable model (NRI 6.5%) and the three-variable model (NRI 12.4%). The mean differences between the observed and predicted kidney failure risk were -4.0, -7.1 and -7.4% for the eight-, four-, and three-variable model, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The KFRE accurately predicted the progression to kidney failure in European CKD patients. Discrimination of the three models was similar. Calibration of the eight-variable model was slightly better than that of the simpler models. We question whether this outweighs its added complexity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".