Prevalence of kidney disease in anaemia differs by GFR-estimating method: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988-94)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anaemia worsens as kidney function declines. Both conditions are associated with increased mortality. Serum cystatin C is purportedly a more sensitive marker of kidney disease and a better predictor of mortality than serum creatinine. However, studies suggest that extrarenal factors also influence cystatin C levels. METHODS: We determined whether estimates of glomerular filtration rate [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)] based on serum cystatin C alone or in combination with serum creatinine were superior to those based on serum creatinine in recognizing impaired kidney function in the setting of anaemia in a sub-sample of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of the USA consisting of 6734 participants, 20 years or older. RESULTS: The prevalence of moderate to severe kidney disease (eGFR 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) among anaemic persons was 15-16% when based on serum creatinine alone (eGFR(SCR)) or combined with cystatin C (eGFR(SCR) (+) (CYSC)); this estimate increased to nearly 25% when kidney function was estimated by cystatin C (eGFR(CYSC)). The adjusted odds ratios of kidney disease in anaemic versus non-anaemic persons were slightly higher with eGFR(CYSC) than eGFR(SCR) and eGFR(SCR) (+) (CYSC) in younger adults [odds ratio (OR) = 5.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.23, 12.17], women (OR = 5.34, 95% CI: 2.36, 12.06) and those with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) (OR = 7.36, 95% CI: 1.98-27.36). CONCLUSIONS: Impaired kidney function was common in individuals with anaemia. Among anaemic individuals, the prevalence estimate for kidney disease was notably higher when kidney function was estimated by cystatin C alone compared with the estimations by serum creatinine alone or in combination with serum cystatin C. eGFR(CYSC) may be particularly helpful in identifying kidney disease in the setting of anaemia among younger persons, women and those with elevated CRP. Regardless of which renal biomarker is used, our study suggests that an evaluation for underlying kidney disease should be considered in the standard workup of anaemia.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".