Cohort Profile: The Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium (CKD-PC) was established in 2009 to provide comprehensive evidence about the prognostic impact of two key kidney measures that are used to define and stage CKD, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria, on mortality and kidney outcomes. CKD-PC currently consists of 46 cohorts with data on these kidney measures and outcomes from >2 million participants spanning across 40 countries/regions all over the world. CKD-PC published four meta-analysis articles in 2010-11, providing key evidence for an international consensus on the definition and staging of CKD and an update for CKD clinical practice guidelines. The consortium continues to work on more detailed analysis (subgroups, different eGFR equations, other exposures and outcomes, and risk prediction). CKD-PC preferably collects individual participant data but also applies a novel distributed analysis model, in which each cohort runs statistical analysis locally and shares only analysed outputs for meta-analyses. This distributed model allows inclusion of cohorts which cannot share individual participant level data. According to agreement with cohorts, CKD-PC will not share data with third parties, but is open to including further eligible cohorts. Each cohort can opt in/out for each topic. CKD-PC has established a productive and effective collaboration, allowing flexible participation and complex meta-analyses for studying CKD.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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".